View
5
Download
0
Category
Preview:
Citation preview
FINAL REPORT
for
REVIEW OF THE OUTER ISLANDS ELECTRIFICATION
PROGRAMMES IN FSM
RFP Reference: SPC 11/14
September 2012
Prepared by
Global Sustainable Energy Solutions Pty. Limited
For
North REP
North Pacific ACP Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Project
i
Acknowledgments
This report was written by Global Sustainable energy Solutions Pty Ltd (GSES) for NORTH REP North
Pacific ACP Renewable Energy and Energy Efficiency Project.
The authors wish to acknowledge the following people who provided information either through
meetings or via e‐mail communications in the preparation of the report:
FSM National (Government)
FSM Department of Recourses & Development
Mr. Hubert Yamada ‐ Asst. Secretary Division of Energy
College of Micronesia
Mr. Grilly Jack‐ Director of Career and Technical Education
FSM Department of Transportation Communication & Infrastructure
Hon. Leo Lokopwe ‐ Acting Secretary and head of the transportation division
Mr.Dickson Wichep ‐ Acting Asst. Secretary Infrastructure
Mr. John Tiechman ‐ Transportation
FSM Department of Education
Hon. Dr. Rufino Mauricio – Secretary
FSM Petrocorp
Mr. Jared Morris – Chief Executive Officer
Mr. Oliver Wortel ‐ Communications Officer
SPC North Rep Mr Rupeni Mario Team Leader North Rep Mr Emanuele Taibi FSM Energy Specialist
Pohnpei State
Pohnpei State Government
Mr. Valerio Hallens ‐ Chief of staff and Head of Energy Workgroup
Mr. Tony Actouka – (retired) energy officer
Pohnpei State Department of Education
Mr. Joseph Villazon ‐ Director of Education
Pingelap Municipality
Hon. Maier Keller ‐ Mayor
Project Management Unit – US Compact
Mr. Marcelino Actouka ‐ Manager
Pohnpei Utility Corporation
Mr. Feliciano Perman ‐ General Manager
ii
Kosrae State
Kosrae Utility Corporation
Mr. Fred Skilling– General Manager Mr. Nena G. Nena – Customer Service Supervisor Mr. Robert Taualupe ‐ Operation Manager
Kosrae State Government
Hon. Mr. Carson Sigrah ‐ Lt. Governor and Head of Energy Workgroup Kosrae State Department of Budget and Planning
Mr. Lipar George – Budget and Planning Administrator Kosrae State Department of Health
Mr. Kun Mongkey ‐ Administrator Kosrae State Department of Education
Mr. Joenson Nithan – IT
Chuuk State
Chuuk Public Utility Corporation (CPUC)
Mr. Mark Waite – Chief Executive Officer Mr. Larry Gouland‐Assistant CEO Mr. Freddy Elias –(retired) Outer Island Electrification Officer under REP‐5
Chuuk State Government
Mr. Wilfred S. Robert‐ Chief of Staff & Chairman Chuuk Energy Workgroup Mr. Frank Cholymay‐ Emergency Management Officer
Chuuk State Department of Education Kaster Sisam ‐ Education Infrastructure Specialist
Chuuk State Department of Health Junior Nomao‐ Health Representative
Yap State
Yap State Public Service Corporation (YSPSC)
Mr. Faustino Yangmog– General Manager Mr. Victor Nabeyan – Special Assistant Mr. Mario Skulbech – Outer Island Electrification Manager
Yap State Department of Health
Mr. Dominic T Yap State Department of Education
Mr. Lorenzo Sartailug Mr. Richard Ligiteiwel Mr. Martin Yangrelmar
Yap State Office of Budget and Planning Mr. Kensley Ikosia
iii
ContentsAcknowledgments ............................................................................................................................... i
1. Executive Summary ........................................................................................................................ 1
1.1 FSM Outer islands Electrification Programme ........................................................................ 1
1.2 Key Issues with existing Programme/ Installations................................................................. 4
1.2.1 Solar Home systems ........................................................................................................ 4
1.2.2 Stand Alone PV Systems for Public Facilities .................................................................. 5
1.2.3 Mini Grids ........................................................................................................................ 5
1.3 Financial Analysis .................................................................................................................... 6
1.3.1 General ............................................................................................................................ 6
1.4 Recommendations .................................................................................................................. 7
1.4.1 Non‐payment Policy ........................................................................................................ 7
1.4.2 School Systems ................................................................................................................ 7
1.4.3 Data Base of Systems ...................................................................................................... 7
1.4.4 Training ........................................................................................................................... 8
1.4.5 Routine Maintenance using FSM’s field trip vessel ........................................................ 8
2.0 Introduction ............................................................................................................................ 9
3.0 Overview of the Outer Island Electrification Programme ..................................................... 14
3.1 Background .......................................................................................................................... 14
3.2 Management of Programmes ............................................................................................... 17
3.2.1 Secretary of Resources and Development (R&D) ................................................................ 17
3.2.2 State Utilities ................................................................................................................. 18
3.3 Systems Installed................................................................................................................... 20
3.4 Proposed System Installations .............................................................................................. 24
3.5 Training ................................................................................................................................. 26
3.6 Key Issues with existing Programme/ Installations............................................................... 26
3.6.1 Non payment of fees ..................................................................................................... 26
3.6.2 Challenges for Solar Home Systems .............................................................................. 29
3.6.4 Systems not being disconnected .................................................................................. 31
3.6.5 No Pool of Funds for buying replacement parts ........................................................... 31
iv
3.6.6 Poor Transport and poor Communications .................................................................. 31
3.6.7 Stand Alone PV Systems for Public Facilities ...................................................................... 31
3.6.8 No Ongoing Training Programme ................................................................................. 32
3.6.9 Problems Experienced and Proposed Improvements.......................................................... 32
4 Financial Analysis ...................................................................................................................... 35
4.1 General .................................................................................................................................. 35
4.1.1 KOSRAE ................................................................................................................................ 35
4.1.2 POHNPEI .............................................................................................................................. 43
4.1.3 CHUUK ................................................................................................................................. 49
4.1.4 YAP ...................................................................................................................................... 55
5 Findings and Conclusions .......................................................................................................... 63
5.1 Collecting Fees ...................................................................................................................... 63
5.2 Policy for non‐payment of fees. ............................................................................................ 63
5.3 Fees Must Reflect Actual Costs ............................................................................................. 64
5.4 Are Full Time Technicians required? ..................................................................................... 64
5.5 School Systems ...................................................................................................................... 65
5.6 Product Quality ..................................................................................................................... 66
5.7 List of Equipment .................................................................................................................. 66
5.8 Replacement of Batteries ..................................................................................................... 67
5.9 Transport and Communications ........................................................................................... 67
5.10 Training ................................................................................................................................. 68
5.10.1 SHS System Training ...................................................................................................... 68
5.10.2 Larger Systems ............................................................................................................. 69
5.11 Routine Maintenance using FSM’s field trip vessel .............................................................. 69
6. Recommendations .................................................................................................................... 72
6.1 Non‐payment Policy .......................................................................................................... 72
6.2 School Systems ...................................................................................................................... 72
6.3 Data Base of Systems ............................................................................................................ 72
6.4 Training ................................................................................................................................. 72
6.5 Routine Maintenance using FSM’s field trip vessel .............................................................. 73
Annex I: Interview with Mr. Tony Actouka. ..................................................................................... 74
ANNEX II : Problems Experienced and Proposed Improvements ..................................................... 81
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐Final Report‐RMI
1
1.ExecutiveSummary
1.1 FSMOuterislandsElectrificationProgrammeThe Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) consist of four States: Kosrae, Pohnpei, Chuuk and Yap, each ,
except for Kosrae that doesn’t have outer islands, have their own Outer Islands’ Solar Electrification
Programme. These programmes are developed by the various States and included in the state energy
action plans. All the four states have set‐up an energy workgroup in which the state utility plays an
important role. There is no national outer island electrification programme in place.
This report addresses the existing outer island electrification programmes on a state by state basis.
Kosrae State:
Rural1 Electrification programme can be summarised as:
PICO solar lighting systems to the non‐electrified households via utility ‘fee for service’ model.
Stand alone PV systems for unelectrified public facilities.
Pohnpei State:
Outer Island Electrification programme can be summarised as:
Solar Home Systems to the outer atolls via utility ‘fee for service’ model.
PV Stand Alone Systems for unelectrified public facilities.
Chuuk State:
Outer Island Electrification program can be summarised as:
Solar Lighting Systems (PICO and Lanterns): There is no household electrification programme
from the Chuuk State Government in place. Mainly private and congress senators’ initiatives
that have supplied hundreds of solar lanterns (D‐LIGHT) (2010‐2011) and 400 PICO Lighting kits
(Ulitium) where distributed in 2011 and 2012. The end‐users will own the lighting systems.
PV stand‐alone systems and mini‐grids for public facilities and households.
Yap State:
Outer Island Electrification programme can be summarised as:
The supply and installation of solar home systems to the outer atolls via utility ‘fee for service’
model.
PV stand‐alone systems and mini‐grids for schools and health centres. Part of an on‐going
programme under the Department of Health and Education.
PV/Diesel Hybrid systems, PV mini and Micro grids.
1Kosrae State doesn’t have any outer islands. The remaining non‐electrified village is Walung.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
2
State Previous Outer Island/ rural Electrification Programme
Current/ ongoing Outer Island/ rural Electrification
Programme
Status Challenges
Kosrae No existing programme
10th EDF – North REP ‐ PICO solar lighting
systems to the non‐electrified households via utility ‘fee for service’ model.
‐ PV stand‐alone system for the public facilities in Walung.
North REP/ Kosrae Utility Authority (KUA) has started the design and purchase of the PV systems and the installations will be finalized at end 2012/ beginning 2013. After installation of the systems Kosrae will have an electrification rate of 100%.
Fee collection
Pohnpei 1. Electrification of outer islands with SHS
2. Electrification of public facilities by PV stand alone systems
1. Rehabilitation to increase the capacity, reliability, and performance of the existing SHS to provide sufficient energy (point 3.3 of Pohnpei Energy Action Plans)
2. Electrification of public facilities (point 3.5 of Pohnpei Energy Action Plans)
Aim is to have all existing stand‐alone PV systems working with a clear maintenance and part replacement program. The original SHS programmes have ceased to exist and no fee collection for these systems have been done over the last decade. Some systems are still working however a rehabilitation plan needs to be prepared. The Pohnpei State Energy Office which was in charge of the programme has been inactive because the position of energy officer has been vacant for about 4 years now. A plan has been developed by Pohnpei State Departments of Education and Health to maintain the standalone PV systems installed at their facilities and some of their staff has been trained to do the operation and maintenance services. Some municipalities have taken up the initiative to purchase parts and new PV systems that will be community based. They have started their own fee collection (example Pingelap).
The Pohnpei State Energy Action Plans have as performance indicator that at least 75% of outer island households electrified with solar energy. Without a clear plan and programme in place it will be difficult to achieve this goal. It is not clear who in Pohnpei State will be the responsible agency for outer island electrification that will oversee the actual implementation, operation and maintenance. The Pohnpei Utility Corporation (PUC) is not keen to take up the challenge. Fee collection will remain a big challenge due to the remoteness of the islands, the willingness for paying and lack of a clear O&M plan.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
3
Chuuk No Outer Island Electrification Plan in the past besides the REP‐5 electrification of public facilities with PV. Some of the outer islands had local initiatives (Municipal) and installed a mini diesel grid.
1. Hybrid systems using PV and either diesel/ wave or wind energy for the unelectrified Truk Lagoon Islands: Tonoas, Fefen, Uman, Udot, Faichuuk (Chuuk State Energy Action Plans Point 3.2)
2. Electrification of lagoon islands and other un‐electrified islands. By PV stand‐alone systems for all public facilities in the outer islands and install hybrid PV installations on the lagoon islands with pre‐paid meters (Chuuk State Energy Action Plans Point 3.3)
Operation and maintenance on the systems installed under the REP‐5 programme is being done by Chuuk Public Utility Corporation (CPUC) on an ad‐hoc bases, but plans are being made to have a O&M schedule in place. PV systems for the lagoon islands and other outer islands have been designed under the North REP and these systems will be installed in 2013. This will help CPUC in having the outer island electrification O&M plans running more efficiently due to the increased number of systems in the islands. Some new initiatives have been started by Chuuk senators who supply PICO solar systems to the various outer island households.
Currently the islands are not electrified and have a population of approximately 40,000 people. The hybrid solution will make the power affordable however the fee collection remains a challenge. To ensure sustainability CPUC has plans to install pre‐paid meters. Public facilities will be billed directly to the various departments (health and education) who need assistance in establishing budget lines that will ensure enough budget is allocated for the payment of the electricity.
Yap Various programmes are in place in Yap: 1. Mini island grids
using diesel generators (Mogmog, Falalop, Woleai) – under Yap State Public Service Corporation (YSPSC)
2. PV stand alone systems for public facilities – under Yap State department of Health and Education
3. Island community initiatives – SHS in Satawal, freezer systems etc. – community based.
4. PV mini‐grids in Asor and Fadrai (REP‐5) – under YSPSC
Electrifying 4 of the non‐electrified Atolls and islands: Fais, Ifalik, Lamotrek, Satawal. Electrifying all the other populated islands: Faraulap, Euaripik, Elato, Ngulu, Woleai. PV Mini‐grid for Fais. Fais, being a high island has 2 potentials: solar and wind energy. (Yap State Energy Action Plans point 3.1) Establish hybrid systems, PV solar and diesel, in the already electrified outer‐islands: ‐ Ulithi‐Mogmog ‐ Ulithi‐Falalop ‐ Woleai‐Falalop Currently the islands have diesel mini‐grids and the power generation is too expensive to be sustainable. (Yap State Energy Action Plans point 3.3)
The State Departments of Health and Education still have their ongoing electrifications programs and some new PV stand‐alone systems have been bought in 2012. YSPSC has started, under the North REP funded by the 10th EDF , the electrification of the major outer islands by installing hybrid systems and PV mini and micro grids. These systems will be online in 2013. Under the European Union Energy Facility 2 (EFII) YSPSC has started the electrification of the smaller, remaining, outer islands following the energy action plans. The programme will install SHS and stand‐alone PV systems on public facilities. The installation of these systems will be in 2013 (tenders have been published). YSPSC is responsible for the O&M of all the outer island systems installed under the EU programmes and discussions have started to include them in the O&M of the systems owned by the various state departments as well.
Fee collection.YSPSC is planning to install pre‐paid meters to ensure the sustainability of the various programmes. Also , YSPSC has started discussions with the state departments for a fee for the O&M of their systems. The state departments are facing difficulties due to a lack of technical skills and capacity within the department that are required to implement a good replacement and O&M program.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
4
1.2 KeyIssueswithexistingProgramme/Installations
1.2.1 SolarHomesystems
NonpaymentoffeesIn FSM has currently two different SHS programs running. The first one is in Pohnpei where the
emphasis is on refurbishing the already installed systems. The challenges faced are that no funding for
this programme has been identified. Furthermore there are currently no SHS household electrification
programmes that have an operating fee collection system. The SHS installed in Pohnpei were handed
over to the users and no maintenance is done by an outside agency. The householders purchase their
own replacement batteries (mainly marine and car batteries) and keep the systems running. Most of the
householders have never received a replacement battery after the original one broke down despite
having paid fees that were supposed to cover such replacements. In the first year, the collection rate
reached almost 100% but this figure dropped dramatically in the years that followed. The third year saw,
on average, a collection percentage of less than 50%.
Yap has just started the second SHS programme for FSM. While the systems have not yet arrived and
installed the programme differs from the one in Pohnpei.
The SHS for the Yap outer islands are bigger than the ones installed in Pohnpei (average 75Wp) ensuring
enough power for the householders. Also the end‐users will not be randomly selected but need to
qualify, meaning that they must have a running bank account that would allow automatic monthly
payments. One householder could sign up for a 500 Wp system and “distribute” the power to extended
family members. That way the Utility – in charge of the SHS ‐ will collect the monthly fee only from one
person instead of having collected it from more people. YSPSC is still working on the payment structure
together with the communities and the report has made some recommendations in that regards.
MaintenanceDespite the positive impacts from these systems, solar PV electrification programmes in FSM face
sustainability challenges. The installed solar systems work well for the first 3 years because during that
period adequate and trained human resources are locally available to maintain and manage the systems
and the batteries are still in good condition. During that initial period while the systems are being
handed over to the local communities (or service providers) the development partners and suppliers
stay in contact with the communities and provide technical guidance.
However due to the remoteness of the villages there is a lack of an institutional framework to support
the O&M because of the irregular visit by boat to these islands (3 times a year).Often the technical
support disappears leaving the communities handling any difficulties alone. In many cases after three or
four years the systems are not functioning properly and are simply abandoned because there is no
money to purchase the new batteries as was intended.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
5
SystemsnotbeingdisconnectedSo far there were never systems disconnected even while in most cases a clear disconnection policy in
was in place. Challenges faced were that the system was installed on private property or on/in private
homes. Also the challenge that in small island communities the end‐users and technicians can be related
leaving the technician with a pressure to leave the system connected.
NoPoolofFundsforbuyingreplacementpartsAfter the initial spare parts have been used there was in several cases no budget for purchasing the
replacement parts. A lack of technical knowledge also contributed to the problem that in some cases the
incorrect parts were ordered or that no parts could be found on the market. With parts not available for
months the systems started to fail and this contributed to a lack of trust by the end‐users leading
towards them stop paying the monthly fees.
PoorTransportandpoorCommunicationsIn all discussions, the issue of poor transportation (between the islands) and poor communications were
cited constantly as affecting the collection of fees, the delivery of spare parts and even attempts to train
the technicians. Although there are boats travelling to the islands, the schedules are irregular which
results in the “poor” transport. Communications on many of the islands are still only by radio, but this is
slowly improving.
1.2.2 StandAlonePVSystemsforPublicFacilitiesThe larger stand‐alone systems installed on schools, dispensaries etc., are facing similar challenges as
discussed above but in some states improvements have been made.
NonpaymentoffeesWhile fee agreements were/ are in place still CPUC, responsible for the O&M in Chuuk, is struggling in
getting the monthly payments. The state agencies responsible for paying the fees have in most cases no
budget allocated for electricity. A dialog has started and it is expected that with some assistance this
problem would be solved. In Pohnpei the challenges are in the institutional set‐up where the O&M of
the systems are under the responsibility of the State Department of Transportation & Infrastructure
(T&I) and the utility had indicated that they not willing to take up the O&M responsibility. The end‐users
of the systems, Pohnpei State Department of Education (DOE) and Health (DOH) are willing to do the
O&M but lack trained staff. On a positive note in the discussion held with the DOE and DOH, both in
Chuuk and Pohnpei, it was clear that the fee was not an issue if they had included it in the budget.
1.2.3 MiniGridsYap state has installed several PV island mini‐grids. All the end‐users have been connected through pre‐
paid meters leading towards a 100% payment. The challenge faced here are different than the points
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
6
mentioned above. While all the people pay for the power, the low load combined with a fix kWh rate
creates the challenge that the utility doesn’t collect the amount for the replacement of parts (batteries)
in the future unless the energy consumption increases. If the rates increase, people will use less power
and thus this option does not automatically creates a positive result. The report addresses this issue and
gives some options that can be considered by the utility. On a positive note the trend has been noticed
by the utility that, due to the high electricity rate in the neighbouring islands that use diesel grids, the
electricity consumption in the islands, using PV, is increasing. People are simple relocating their freezers
and cool storage to the islands using the lower electricity rate. This has resulted in a better income for
the utility.
1.3 FinancialAnalysis
1.3.1 GeneralIn three of the four FSM states (Yap, Chuuk and Pohnpei) small scale outer island electrification
programmes have been undertaken over a period of more than twenty years. Most of these projects
had a focus on solar but diesel grids have also been installed. In Pohnpei and Yap solar home systems
have been installed; in all three states, solar stand‐alone systems for public facilities and in Chuuk and
Yap PV mini‐grids were installed.
An analysis of required monthly fees has been undertaken for various scenarios and they are especially
focussed on the different programmes and States.
MonthlyFeeanalysisfor‘FeeforService’Model–StandAloneSystemsforPublicFacilitiesThe fee collection for the school system could use a fee‐for‐service model, where utility or
service operator get a fee for servicing the systems and is responsible for the operation of the
system while the budget for the required replacement of the batteries would be the
responsibility of the owner of the systems, State Government. In that scenario the utility or
service operator will also take the responsibility to maintain and replace the electronics, for
example the inverter and charge controller after they breakdown.
MonthlyFeeanalysisfor‘FeeforService’Modeland‘Rent‐To‐Own’–PICOLightingSystemTwo fee collection scenarios have been considered for the PSLS:
Scenario 1: Rent‐to‐own approach where the system can be paid off in 2 or a maximum of 6
instalments. KUA is willing to be the facilitator of such a payment system as long as they have
spare‐parts available.
Scenario 2: Fee for Service where the users pay KUA a monthly flat rate for the service and
replacement of the systems.
MonthlyFeeanalysisfor‘FeeforService’Model–PayperkWhforMini‐GridsTwo fee collection scenarios have been considered for the Mini‐Grids:
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
7
Scenario 1: A payment per usage with a kWh rate. That model is implemented in Yap where the
end‐users are connected through prepaid meters and pay a kWh rate of $0.45.
Scenario 2: A combination between a flat rate and a kWh rate.
MonthlyFeeanalysisfor‘FeeforService’Model–SHSThe rates for the SHS based on replacement of the batteries and controllers every 8 and 10
years were analysed. .
Scenario 1 shows a flat rate per system inclusive replacing the batteries every 8 years and 10
years.
Scenario two uses a kWh rate –battery replacement every 8 years. Model A is when the systems
is used for 80% of the designed capacity and Model B 50% of the designed capacity used. It is
clearly seen the effect and thus financial challenge with charging a kWh price.
1.4 Recommendations
1.4.1 Non‐paymentPolicyA strict ‘non‐payment’ policy must be implemented especially for SHS. Allowing 2 months without
payment of the fee before the system is disconnected is a good policy, however if the payment structure
is to be flexible e.g. payment by commodities, then the non‐payment policy needs to be based on a
longer period.
It is recommended that a payment policy is introduced which is based on some form of payment every 6
months or 12 months This would mean that if no effort to make any payment is made within that 6 or
12 month period, then the system must be removed.
If for political reasons this is never enforced, then the minimum outcome should be that no person with
outstanding fees should ever have any major equipment (e.g. batteries, controllers) replaced.
1.4.2 SchoolSystemsIt is recommended that the utilities approaches the Department of Education with a suggested tariff
that reflects the replacement of batteries and inverters based on the current energy usage as well as the
cost of the O&M.
1.4.3 DatabaseofSystemsIt is recommended that a data base is established which:
Names the system owner
Provides the GPS co‐ordinates of installation.
List all the equipment, brand, model and capacity/rating.
Date of installation and date of any equipment change, along with update in equipment.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
8
Includes a wiring diagram showing the identified components and their location in the circuit.
1.4.4 TrainingThat R & D and the four utilities co‐ordinate the following:
Liaise with College of Micronesia COM or another party to conduct an installation and
maintenance course for the existing and future island technicians. If the college does not have
an internal mechanism for developing solar courses then the task analysis being developed by
regional Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Training Competency Standards Advisory
Committee which comprises many CROP agencies and chaired by USP should be adopted.
Develop a programme of short courses which help with the technicians' professional
development—these could just be short refresher courses.
Contact SPC to determine how the course based on the operations and maintenance of the
school systems could be conducted in the four state centres and possibly provided to College of
Micronesia so that they can conduct future courses.
It is recommended that one of the technicians of each utility becomes a trainer.
1.4.5 RoutineMaintenanceusingFSMfieldtripvesselIt is recommended that the option to use the “Caroline Voyager” to provide routine maintenance
(quarterly) of the solar systems in Chuuk and Pohnpei (Yap has technicians who can do the
maintenance) should be considered. On the boat they have a chief engineer, electrician and a number
of technical staff, who have ample time when visiting an island and could be used. If a separate
maintenance person was sent they would have to travel by this boat.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
9
2.0 IntroductionThis consultancy reviewed the rural areas and outer islands electrification programmes currently
undertaken in the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) and Republic of Marshall Islands (RMI). The
objectives of the review were to assist the Government of FSM and RMI to make these programmes
sustainable and to help North‐REP identify specific interventions to address sustainability issues.
The consultancy’s aims were to:
Identify sustainability issues or challenges arising from the rural areas and outer islands
electrification programmes;
Develop user‐pay mechanism(s) to address off‐grid or mini‐grid renewable energy systems for
rural areas and outer islands electrification;
Develop an appropriate tariff structure, tariff collection and management system for the rural
areas and outer islands electrification programmes;
Develop a funding mechanism to sustain /subsidize rural /outer islands electrification programmes;
Conduct a ”training needs assessment” and develop a modality of training for rural areas and outer islands technicians, public utilities, final users and other required personnel to sustain such programmes.
The FSM is made up of four groups of island States geographically sequenced from east to west: Kosrae,
Pohnpei, Chuuk, and Yap. Each state has considerable autonomy and is equally unique with its own
geography, ecology, language and culture. The nation exists of 607islands of which only the main islands
and island centres have an island electrical grid. Each state has its own state utility that is mandated to
provide electricity to all the inhabitants.
State Islands and Land Area Un‐electrified islands/ regions Land forms and comments
Kosrae Land: 43 mi2(111 km2) Outer Islands: none
Walung Village Tropical moist forests. Rainfall averages 252 inches per year. Vegetation as above. Mountain cloud forests thrive in parts of Kosrae.
Pohnpei Land: 132 mi2 (342 km2) Lagoon: 297 mi2 (769 km2) Outer Islands: 6 main groups
Pingelap; Mwoakilloa; Kapingamarangi; Nukuoro; Ngetik (Sapwuafik); Pohnpei‐ Parem, Lengar, Pakin, Ant
The main island Pohnpei is covered with tropical moist forests and rainfall averages 200 inches per year (lowlands) up to 400 inches (mountainous interiors). As above, mixed broadleaf forest is dominant and mountain forests thrive but 2/3 of native forest has been lost in past 20 years. The outer islands, however, are low laying atoll with limited land area, relatively low rainfall and primary with coconut and pandanus
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
10
forest coverage. Chuuk Land: 49 mi2 (127 km2)
Lagoon: 823 mi2 (2132 km2) Islands: 7 main groups
Chuuk Atoll (except Weno),
Nomwisofo, Hall Islands,
Namonuito Atoll (Magur Islands)
(northwest), Pattiw (Western
Islands), Eastern Islands (Upper
Mortlock Islands), Mortlock Islands.
16 of 17 inhabited islands in Chuuk
lagoon have no electric power
Chuuk lagoon includes 98 islands (14 mountainous and volcanic), surrounded by a lagoon of 800 sq. mi. Mixed broadleaf forests comprise the dominant vegetation of the high islands. Lowland vegetation is dominated by mangrove and swamp forest, with large portions disturbed by human activity. The outer islands in Chuuk are low laying atolls with relatively less rainfall and coconut forest coverage.
Yap Land: 46 mi2 (119 km2) Lagoon: 405 mi2 (1050 km2) Islands: 12 are inhabited
Eauripik, Elato, Fais, Faraulep, Gaferut, Ifalik, Lamotrek,Ngulu, Olimarao, Piagailoe (West Fayu), Pikelot, Satawal. Communities in Ulithi and Woleai atolls have limited electric power
Tropical dry forests. Dominant vegetation types are mixed broadleaf forest,swamp, mangrove, savannah and agro‐forests. Rainfall averages 120 inches per year with a distinct dry season. The Yap outer islands are low laying and have a lush vegetation with breadfruit trees and coconut forests. They atolls have relatively less rainfall.
Sources: FSM National Biodiversity Strategy and Action Plan (Govt. of FSM, 2002)
The existing outer island electrification programme for the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM)needs
to be assessed on a state by state basis.
Kosrae State:
Rural2 Electrification programmecan be summarised as:
The supply and installation of PICO solar lighting systems to the non‐electrified households via
utility ‘fee for service’ model. No systems have been installed, but under the North‐REP PICO
systems will be bought and installed.
The supply and installation of a school system (including connection to a health clinic) to be
installed under the North‐REP in 2012. No fee collection structure has been in place at the time
of the consultations.
Pohnpei State:
Outer Island Electrification programmecan be summarised as:
The supply and installation of solar home systems to the outer atolls via utility ‘fee for service’
model. Over the last two decades SHS systems have been installed in three of the five main
2Kosrae State doesn’t have any outer islands. The remaining non‐electrified village is Walung.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
11
outer islands from Pohnpei, Pingelap; Mwoakilloa; Sapwuafik. The installation of systems has
been through a grant from the French Government, Italian Government and US Government.
The majority of the systems are not working properly as there is no ’operation and maintenance
(O&M)’ or a parts‐replacement programme in place. The State Energy Plans call for funding for
replacement parts and refurbishment of the previously installed systems that are currently out
of order.
The supply and installation of school systems (including connection to some health clinics) under
the REP‐5 programme; more schools (clinics) could be installed under the North‐REP program.
Pohnpei Utility Corporation (PUC) is not (yet) interested in taking up the responsibility of O&M
of these systems. The Department of Health and Education, however, have indicated that they
are willing to set a budget apart for the operation and maintenance as well as for replacement
parts. The systems are under the responsibility of Pohnpei State Department of Transportation
and Infrastructure – the Energy Office is part of this Department.
Chuuk State:
Outer Island Electrification program can be summarised as:
Solar Home Systems: There is no household electrification programme from the Chuuk State
Government in place. Under the REP5 programme, the state together with the Chuuk Public
Utility Corporation (CPUC) had chosen a solar lantern project whereby the household could
purchase a solar lantern and pay in four instalments. Due to a delay in the project, the
implementation never materialized. Since 2010 hundreds of solar lanterns (D‐LIGHT) were
purchased by the people from the outer islands from a local solar company called Green Energy
Solutions who had despatched sales staff via the field trip ship “Caroline Voyager”. In the
Mortlock Islands, 400 PICO Lighting kits (Ulitium) where distributed in 2011 and 2012 via a
Congress budget allocation and another 400 of these systems have been ordered for the same
region. The end‐users will own the lighting systems and spare parts are available in Pohnpei and
Weno (Main Island).
Diesel grids: there was a diesel island grid in the Lagoon Island Tonoas managed by CPUC. In
2005, the utility removed the generators and discontinued providing power on that island due
to the lack of payments and the high cost of transporting fuel and maintaining the grid. The idea
has been raised to reactivate the grid by installing a hybrid system and prepaid meters.
The supply and installation of school systems (including connection to some health clinics) under
the REP‐5 program; CPUC has signed a MOU based on a fix monthly rate per system with the
Department of Education for the systems installed under the REP‐5. For the installations that are
funded under EDF10, the utility together with the North – REP PMU have developed a tariff
structure based on a kWh rate with a fixed amount to be paid (see ANNEX III) for the new
systems that will be installed under the North‐REP.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
12
Yap State:
Outer Island Electrification programme can be summarised as:
The supply and installation of solar home systems to the outer atolls via utility ‘fee for service’
model. Yap is running two major funding programmes for outer island electrification: (i) the
North‐REP and (ii) Energy Facility II (EFII). The EFII is focussing on the SHS and some community
centres (20), while the North‐REP is looking at PV‐diesel hybrid systems.
The supply and installation of school systems (including connection to some health clinics) are
part of an ongoing programme under the Department of Health and Education.
Supply and installation of two island PV mini‐grids were completed under the REP‐5 program
and potentially some other islands grid systems (this time hybrid – PV/diesel) will be installed
under the North‐REP.
For FSM in particular, this review and therefore this final report address the issues of:
1. Are all installed systems the same size and what transpires if someone wants a larger system?
e.g. to operate TV etc.
2. What is the monthly payment per household for individual systems and what amount should
this payment be for the programme to be financially sustainable? What costs should be covered
under the payment? How do the households on the outer islands physically make their monthly
payments for their solar home systems (e.g. Yap, Pohnpei)? Why should it be a monthly
payment and not payment tied to ship arrivals or other trigger for income on the islands?
3. If the households are not making their payments, why? Is it because they are not getting the
services desired, because they do not trust the organization supposed to be doing the
maintenance to follow through, or because they have no money? Should a subsidy be
introduced to cover the costs of the on‐going maintenance and replacement? Where would this
subsidy come from? Who would it go to?
4. What happens with the community buildings, schools and dispensaries, what are their monthly
repayment fees and what does it need be for the programme to be sustainable?
5. Is the current model of the utility billing the departments (in Chuuk, Yap and Kosrae) to collect
the fees sustainable? If not, what other solutions could be implemented?
6. What is the procedure once households or offices do not make the necessary payments?
7. How many local technicians are on each island and is this number sustainable or not enough?
How to contact and train them?
8. What should the monthly payment rate be for the new systems?
9. Is the current model for management of the program suitableor should other models be
implemented?
10. Is the model where the people pay an on‐going fee a sustainable model or should other models
be introduced?
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
13
11. What is the fee that is required to cover the on‐going maintenance and replacement costs for
the nine school and five dispensary systems installed under the REP5 programme?
Figure 1 is a map showing the Federated States of Micronesia with its four States which are referred to
throughout this report.
Figure 1: Map of the FSM
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
14
3.0 OverviewoftheOuterIslandElectrificationProgramme
3.1 BackgroundSimilar to other island nations, the Federated States of Micronesia (FSM) are heavily dependent on
petroleum as a source of energy. The importation of fossil fuel alone accounts for over 30 % of FSM’s
national budget, and as world oil prices continue to spiral upwards while the global supply dwindles and
demand increases, this number will only get higher. In April 2006 the consumer fuel cost of a kilowatt‐
hour (kWh) of electricity on Pohnpei, the FSM’s largest island was 17.5 cents, up 80% from 9.74 cents in
September 2002. With added fuel surcharges, the Pohnpei Utility Corporation (PUC) charges consumers
a combined total of 40 cents per kWh in January 2008, and it is now (2012) approaching 57 cents. The
other state Utilities – Kosrae Utility Authority (KUA), Chuuk Public Utility Corporation (CPUC) and Yap
State Public Service Corporation (YSPSC) – face similar spiralling rates due to the high cost of fossil fuel.
In Yap State, the cost per kWh in the outer islands that have an island grid installed has increased from
45 cents (2011) to $ 1.04 in 2012.
Access to consistent, affordable, renewable energy is necessary to achieve the national sustainable
development goals, as laid out in the Federated States of Micronesia Sustainable Development Plan
(FSM SDP, 2004).
The Government of FSM is building a sustainable renewable energy framework that will allow its utilities
to continue to transition, to expand services (46% of households currently do not have access to
electricity) and to prosper and ease the mounting burden of payments that families and villages must
shoulder (particularly those at the lowest income levels).
While solar and diesel/solar hybrid systems are seen as the most likely technologies to electrify the
outer islands, there are still other technologies like small scale wind and biomass that might have a
future in some of the more populated islands. Coconuts are also a good source of bio‐fuel and offer
great potential to be supported and expanded. The FSM Petroleum Corporation (FSM PetroCorp) is
looking into making biodiesel that can be used to power the generators in some of the islands (source:
Vital Biodiesel –“coconut industry reform improvement”, May 2012 –report to the Governors –
“Impediments to Private Sector Growth High Costs of Energy Inputs Way forward for FSMPC.”)
. According to the Coconut Development Authority, the FSM is producing around 600 to 900 tonnes of
copra per year (compared to 5,000 to 8,000 tonnes in the 80’s) and most of this quantity is produced in
the outer islands. Further, as some preliminary field tests indicate, there appears to be potential for
small‐scale production of bio‐gas. Throughout the FSM, owning pigs is a large part of the culture and pig
pens are nearly ubiquitous especially in Kosrae and Pohnpei. However in the outer islands, the pigs are
in most cases not located in pig pens but they roam freely or are tied up under a tree. Transport to the
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
15
outer islands is subject to numerous issues, e.g. high fuel costs and changing weather patterns being
chief amongst them. A more sustainable use of locally available sources of energy, along with the
priority of the nation to achieve equitable and improved living standards, will require that these
challenges are met, and, as mentioned earlier, the Government and utilities agree that this outer island
electrification might be best served by using solar energy as the main source and is application being
solar home systems, Pico lighting systems or PV‐hybrid mini‐grids.
In Pohnpei State trials of solar energy for village electrification in Mwoakilloa were carried out in the late
1980’s. Although the project was not continued, the experience led to the development of improved
technical and institutional arrangements for new installations in Mwoakilloa, Pingelap, Sapwuafik and
other Pohnpei State outer islands totalling nearly 500 installations. The Outer Islands’ Solar
Electrification Programme started in 1993 with SHS projects in the outer islands of Pohnpei through the
Pohnpei State Energy Office. Later other government agencies like the utilities, Departments of
Education and Health and even island communities implemented solar projects in various islands. Yap
state also has had village electrification projects using solar power with a French funded project for 50
Satawal homes and some stand‐alone systems for public facilities.
Mwoakilloa:
Each residence on Kahlap is equipped with solar panels to provide electric power. The solar facilities
were donated by the French Government about 20 years ago. There was a delivery ceremony on the
island and it was attended by the French ambassador. At that time, two panels and two batteries were
provided for each house. Three island residents were trained and designated as technicians. The
maintenance was done under the coordination of the Pohnpei State Energy Office (Dept. T&I). A
monthly collection of US$5.00 was included in the programme, however after a few years no further
collections were done and the villagers now look after their own systems. The capacity possessed by
each house is not sufficient to power appliances, but it is said to be enough to run several light sources
for four hours or one light source throughout the night. A survey was done in 2011 and at the time of
survey, all solar panels were reported as working, though some batteries were no longer usable. In the
2008, the EU delivered additional solar equipment for the school and dispensary. These systems on the
public facilities are in working order and can support the running of numerous appliances, including
refrigerators and freezers.
Pohnpei State Government provided funding for about 300 SHS for lighting only in the late 1990’s to
early 2000’s for the remote islands. The German Government provided funding for sixty‐seven SHS in
early 1990’s for islands located within the barrier reef but not connected to the central grid. In mid‐
1980’s, the Government of France funded forty‐seven SHS for only household lighting on one of the
remote islands of Pohnpei. The US Department of Energy funded several SHS Pilot Projects in the FSM in
the 1980’s.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
16
The problem encountered in the previous solar projects was their sustainability. Although project
recipients paid a monthly tariff of $5.00, there was no adequate institution in place to collect the
revenue and to maintain the systems. Coupled with this were the problems of the remoteness of the
sites, the lack of spare parts and the lack of technical skills for repair and maintenance. The increased
capacity building in renewable energy technologies has improved the local technical capabilities.
Pohnpei Utilities Corporation (PUC) felt that because of the remoteness of the project sites and the
limited number of units installed, it did not warrant an investment in time and finances for their
involvement in the scheme’s operation and repair and maintenance.
Over the years, many off‐grid solar systems installed (small solar systems in schools, homes,
dispensaries, municipal offices, churches etc.) of which:
95% were funded through grants
Most of the systems were for radio communications and some for water pumping
Solar Home Systems (SHS) were for several outer islands
USDA Rural Development and the Asian Development Bank have provided matching grants for
Solar installations in Chuuk that were funded by the State Government
The US Embassy and the Australian Embassy, FSM, have provided small grants for small solar
projects on remote islands in Chuuk, Pohnpei and Yap. Most of these systems were for
computer systems for schools.
The French Embassy has provided grants for solar home systems in Pohnpei and Yap
REP‐5 started in 2007 and was a major outer island electrification programme using solar energy
and was funded by the European Union 9th EDF for 22 sites for a total installed capacity of
almost 200 kWp of solar:
o Kosrae : 48 kWp grid‐connected (5 sites)
o Pohnpei : 50 kWp off‐grid on schools, dispensaries and municipal buildings
o Chuuk :30kWp off‐grid systems on public facilities and one PV mini‐grid
systems
o Yap : 50 kWp, two PV mini‐grids electrifying two complete islands making
them 100% renewable
A number of private installations exist but no survey has been carried out to determine the number of
systems or their characteristics. Starting in 2012, a FSM Senator initiated a household electrification
programme in the Mortlock islands in Chuuk with the first 400 PICO Lighting Systems (using Sundaya’s
Ulitium) and another 400 systems are expected to be installed in the later part of 2012.
Since the start of different donor funded programmes:
1. Approximately 400 household solar home systems (Pohnpei and Yap);
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
17
2 500 PICO Solar Lighting Systems (Chuuk);
3 16 PV School Systems (Pohnpei, Chuuk and Yap);
4 20 PV systems on dispensaries (from 75Wp VHF‐communication systems to 4.5kWp systems in
Pohnpei, Chuuk and Yap);
5 12freezer systems/community systems (Yap, Pohnpei and Chuuk);and
6 3 PV island mini‐grids (Chuuk, Yap) have been installed.
Under the North‐REP programme (refer to section 2.4),more schools and island PV hybrid system and
micro‐grids will be installed as well as PICO lighting Systems for all households in Walung (Kosrae) and
Solar Lanterns for households in Chuuk.
3.2 ManagementofProgrammesIt is the responsibility of the Department of Resources and Development (R&D) to manage the planning
of national electrification programmes, but the implementation is handled either by the Department of
Transportation, Communication and Infrastructure or at a state level by the utilities or State
Government Departments (Health, Education and/or Transportation &Infrastructure). In some cases the
island municipalities have their own solar projects with small grants from various embassies.
In Kosrae, Chuuk and Yap, the utilities have the responsibility for the management of the on‐island solar
technicians who undertake the maintenance of the systems. In Pohnpei it is the responsibility of the
State Government’s Department of Transportation and Infrastructure to work with the communities,
the local mayors and Government agencies, e.g. Department of Health and Education, to address issues
such as installations, payments of fees and in particular the sustainability of the programme.
3.2.1SecretaryofResourcesandDevelopment(R&D)The secretary of R & D is Mr Marion Henry who is very supportive of the Outer Islands’ Electrification
Programme. The national coordination of nationwide programmes, such as the EDF9 and EDF10 by the
Energy Division headed by the Assistant Secretary, Mr. Hubert Yamada.
It is the responsibility of R & D to work with the state governments and utilities on the grant projects but
each state has designated the responsibilities to overcome the issues associated with fee payment to
the energy workgroups and utilities.
The Energy Division is also involved with all energy planning and policies which include all other fuels
(petroleum, biomass) and energy efficiency.
In the last 18 months, R & D have been working with Mr Emanuele Taibi, Energy Specialist for NorthREP
based in Pohnpei, to identify solutions to the sustainability of outer island electrification programme –
funded under the 10th EDF.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
18
Under the North‐REP, funding will be available for the installation of 3400 solar lanterns having a central
charging station; 100 PICO Lighting systems; PV stand‐alone systems for schools and community centres;
PV Mini/Micro grid systems and PV/Diesel Hybrid Systems (refer to section 2.4). It is R & D’s
responsibility to coordinate with the State Stakeholders. Site visits have been made by North‐REP and
the utilities and, meetings have been held with the various island communities.
As part of the planning for the dissemination of the systems, the surveys identified:
The type of systems required;
The willingness of the users to pay and the issues relating to the monthly payments (refer
section 2.5).
The logistics in undertaking the proposed installations, e.g. moving the equipment around the
atoll/island; storage of the equipment; and ability of local people to help with the installation.
3.2.2 StateUtilities
3.2.2.1KosraeUtilityAuthority(KUA)The KUA team which currently maintains the solar systems comprises 3 staff based in KUA head office,
with Mr. Robert Taualupe heading the team.
Mr Taualupe spends less than 10% of his time on the solar systems programme and no staff has a full‐
time role for the O&M of the PV systems.
The KUA technicians look after the five grid‐connected systems installed under the REP‐5 programme
and will be responsible for the O&M of the systems that will be installed under the North‐ REP.
The KUA staff has participated in several solar training courses on grid‐connected and off‐grid solar PV
systems, including the training organized by North‐REP on Operation and Maintenance of off‐grid solar
systems.
3.2.2.2PohnpeiUtilityCorporation(PUC)PUC had an alternative energy manager, Mrs. Caroline who was responsible for the mini‐hydro plant
and the solar home systems installed in Pingelap. Mrs. Caroline has left PUC recently and currently PUC
has no staff to responsible for the Pingelap SHS.
During the REP‐5, PUC sent three of its technical staff to participate in the installation of the PV systems
and the same team had participated in various PV training sessions including the North‐REP training on
Operation and Maintenance of off‐grid PV systems.
PUC has trained several of its technicians on solar and they are capable to do O&M on PV systems.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
19
3.2.2.3ChuukPublicUtilityCorporation(CPUC)CPUC has 5 people looking after the PV systems. These technicians have undertaken various training
sessions and have installed several bigger (>5kWp) systems. During the REP‐5, CPUC sent three of its
technical staff to participate in the installation of the PV systems and the same team had participated in
various PV training sessions including the North‐REP training on the Operation and Maintenance of off‐
grid PV systems.
The CPUC team currently looking after the solar systems is based at CPUC’s head office, with Mr. Albert
Francis in charge.
The team consists of:
Larry Gouland; Albert Francis; Harry Gouland; Fisantino Nittu and Petrus Petrus. These are the core
technicians, but CPUC will eventually have more people trained as more systems are installed.
3.2.2.3YapStatePublicServiceCorporation(YSPSC)YSPSC has a strong presence in the outer islands of Yap and has three stations in the outer islands with
permanent staff. Mr. Mario Sukulbech as the head of the outer islands’ electrification programme and is
located in Falalop – Ulithi. At this moment YSPSC has a total of 11 technicians in the outer islands.
The YSPSC technicians in the outer islands and well as two from Yap proper are trained during the
various training sessions and have installed several bigger (>5kWp) systems. During the REP‐5, YSPSC
had participated actively in the installation of the PV mini‐grid systems, has installed PV stand alone
systems funded by the French Government in Falalop and Woaleai and the same team had participated
in various PV training sessions inclusive of the North‐REP training on Operation and Maintenance on off‐
grid PV systems.
The communication between the team of technicians is via VHF radio and sometimes the main outer
island service centre (Falalop) has internet access.
The technicians are paid a monthly salary similar to other YSPSC staff. They are required to:
Make weekly visits to each system
Carry out preventive maintenance (check connections, clean components, check battery
voltage,
Check operation of appliances,
Check for encroaching shade on the solar PV.
Until now there are no solar home systems installed in Yap that are being maintained by YSPSC. This
situation will change at the end of 2012 as YSPSC has started an electrification programme, partly
funded by the EU Energy Facility II, that would install 363 Solar Home Systems with a capacity of 500 Wp
each.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
20
YSPSC will recruit additional technicians who will be in charge of the O&M for these systems. The
monthly payments are scheduled to be done via bank and internet payments. On some occasions, the
technician who visits the systems for maintenance and servicing will also collect the fees and carry out
the inspection for any obvious or potential problem with the system, e.g. damaged cables.
Most of the atolls only have two way radios for external communications, so direct communication
between YSPSC and the technicians is difficult.
In most locations, the technicians require a boat to visit some of the systems. This is organised by the
YSPSC outer island service centre and, if there is any associated cost, this is paid for by the office;
however technicians are sometimes able to arrange a ride with someone else already travelling between
the islands within the atoll. The YSPSC technicians are also in charge of disconnecting the system after
60 days if there has been no payment.
The only spare parts available are those that were supplied with the original equipment purchased.
There has been no purchase of new spare parts and no funds have been made available for this.
3.3 SystemsInstalledApproximatley 400 Solar Home Systems have been installed in FSM through various funding sources
since the various outer island electrification programmes have commenced. The majority of these
systems are in Pohnpei.
The number of systems installed on the various atolls/islands is shown in table 2. There is a descrepancy
in the actual number of systems depending on the source used. This table has been based on data
obtained from:
1. The list provided by former Pohnpei Energy Officer Mr. Antony Actouka (Pohnpei figures ‐ 2009);
2. The Satawal Island data base for solar systems.
Table 3 shows the funding source for the various solar home system programmes to‐date and the
approximate date they were installed. Annex 1includes a data base of the equipment that has been
installed in the systems. This data base is incomplete and we have included a recommendation that this
data base be completed in the Findings and Conclusions Section (Section 4) and Recommendations
Section (Section 5).
Under the EU fundedREP5 programme the systems were installed on six schools. These are listed in
Table 4 with details of the equipment listed in Annex 2.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
21
Table 2: Number of Solar Home Systems.
Year Location No. of
SHS System
Capacity Wp
Equip Type Output Tariff Schedule
Responsible agency for repair and
maintenance
Status Remarks
1986 Pohnpei Main Island
2 78 Two 15 watt flour lights
12 volts DC
Buy unit to own @
$511/unit
Owner & Energy office
No longer in service
Systems beyond repair
Early 1990s
Mwoakilloa (Pohnpei)
47 100 Four 15 watt lights & one freezer
24 volt DC
$15.00 per month
No Fee
Collection anymore
Energy office, island trained technicians
Estimate 5% operating- Need parts for all units
Need overall repair and maintenance: parts - battery, regulator, etc. 60% of panels ok
1999 Sapwuahfik (Pohnpei)
105 75 Two 15 watt lights
12 volt DC
$5.00 per month
No Fee
Collection anymore
Energy office, island trained technicians
25% operational
Need overall repair and maintenance: parts - battery, regulator, etc. 60% of panels ok
2000 Parem & Lenger (Pohnpei)
67 (17 Lenger,
50 Parem)
100 Two 15 watt lights
12 volt DC
$5.00 per month
No Fee
Collection anymore
Energy office, island trained technicians
10% operational
Need overall repair and maintenance: parts - battery, regulator, etc. 60% of panels ok
2002 Pakin (Pohnpei)
21 75 Two 15 watt fluorescent tubes
12 volt DC
$5.00 per month
No Fee
Collection anymore
Energy office, island trained technicians
5% operational
Need overall repair and maintenance: parts - battery, regulator, etc. 60% of panels ok
1996 Pingelap (Pohnpei)
129 100 Three 15 watt fluorescent tubes
12 volt DC
$5.00 per month
No Fee
Collection anymore
PUC 25% operational
Need overall repair and maintenance: parts - battery, regulator, etc. 75% of panels ok
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
22
Table 4: PV Systems (installed under the REP‐5 programme3)
State Location Size of Array
Approximate date of
Installation
Fee
Pohnpei Pingelap School 6.2 kWp 2008 Flat rate Flat rate Flat rate Flat rate Flat rate Flat rate Flat rate Flat rate Flat rate Flat rate Flat rate Flat rate Flat rate Flat rate
Dispensary 2.5 kWp 2008 Mwoakilloa School 6.1 kWp 2008
Dispensary 2.5 kWp 2008 Sapwuafik School / municipal office 7.5 kWp 2008
Dispensary 3.0 kWp 2008 Nukuoro School 4.6 kWp 2008
Dispensary 3.0 kWp 2008 Kapingamarangi School 5.8 kWp 2008
Dispensary 4.0 kWp 2008 Chuuk Moch School/Dispensary 6.7 kWp 2009
Satawan High School 6.7 kWp 2009 Udot High School 3.5 kWp 2009
Onoun School/Dispensary/municipal office
11 kWp 2009
Yap
Asor Mini-grid 19.5 kWp 2009 Pre-paid meters
Fadrai Mini-grid 28 kWp 2009 Pre-paid meters
3 No accurate data available on the PV systems that are installed in Yap and Chuuk outer islands that are purchased by the department of education
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐Final Report‐RMI
23
PV size kWp
Total kWh/d Total kWh/month Maintenance
Monthly 6 months Total Yearly 5 year
4 14 420 10 hrs 3.5 hrs 17 hrs 15
Note: irradiation 5.4 deducted with adjustments (60%)
Salary PartsReplacement(10years) Per hour $ 5 Parts Cost Per month $ 50 Battery $ 14,924 (4kWx€ 2870x 1.3) Half yearly $ 17.5 Inverters $ 2,848 (4kWx € 710x1.3) 5 year $ 75 Charge Controllers $ 1,110 (2 x $ 555) Total /year $ 650 Other cost $ 10,000
Total $2,888PV size kWp
Total kWh/d )* Total kWh/month Yearly costs Monthly (flat rate billing) O&M Parts & other
cost Total Yearly Total
O&M All 4 14 420 $ 650 $ 2,888 $ 3,538 $ 54 $ 295 % of designed kWh used
kWh per Month Assumed cost per kWh
$ 2.50 $ 1.50 $ 1.00 $ 0.80 $ 0.60 $ 0.40 100% 420 $1,050 $ 630 $ 420 $ 336 $ 252 $ 168 80% 336 $ 840 $ 504 $ 336 $ 269 $ 202 $ 134
60% 252 $ 630 $ 378 $ 252 $ 202 $ 151 $ 101 40% 168 $ 420 $ 252 $ 168 $ 134 $ 101 $ 67 Calculation based on REP‐5 prices. For Chuuk and Pohnpei a flat‐rate for monthly tariff was approved by the State Governments and CPUC (Chuuk) and T&I (Pohnpei).
PV Modules per Wp
Batteries per Inverters per W
BOS per Wp Total system Per Wp
Ah Wp Cheapest bidder € 3.91 € 6.51 € 2.25 € 0.44 € 0.87 € 7.47 Highest bidder € 5.20 € 9.21 € 3.12 € 0.87 € 1.82 € 11.01
Average (from 9 bids) € 4.76 € 8.14 € 2,87 € 0.71 € 1.47 € 9.81 Note: Cost of the REP-5 PV systems for FSM – total 9 bids received; country of origin: EU; Year: 2008
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐Final Report‐RMI
24
3.4 ProposedSystemInstallationsThrough the current EU funded North‐REP,
For Chuuk, there will be more PV stand‐alone systems and solar lanterns (incl. charging station);
For Yap, there will be mini‐ and micro grids, PV‐diesel Hybrid systems;
For Kosrae, Pico lighting systems and a stand‐alone system for a school (Table 5).
NorthREP has just completed a tender for the provision of all these solar systems.
Table 5: PV systems to be installed under North‐REP
STATE Atoll/Islands/Village Type of system Number of systems
Kosrae Walung ‐ households PICO Lighting Systems – 2 lights 42PICO Lighting Systems – 3 lights 12PICO Lighting Systems – 4 lights 4
Walung ‐ school PV Stand‐alone System – 6 kWp 1Chuuk Truk Lagoon / Fefen – High School &
Dispensary PV stand‐alone system – 14 kWp 1
Truk Lagoon / Fefen – Elementary School
PV stand‐alone system – 8 kWp 1
Truk Lagoon / Uman – Elementary School
PV stand‐alone system – 6 kWp 1
Truk Lagoon / Fanapanges – El. School & Dispensary
PV stand‐alone system – 7 kWp 1
Truk Lagoon / Fonoton – El. School & Dispensary
PV stand‐alone system – 7 kWp 1
Truk Lagoon / Tol – El. School (Central Wonip)
PV stand‐alone system – 6 kWp 1
Truk Lagoon / Tol – El. School (Munien) PV stand‐alone system – 4 kWp 1Lekinioch / Jr. High School and dispensary
PV stand‐alone system – 11 kWp 1
Oneop / Elementary School PV stand‐alone system – 6 kWp 1Truk Lagoon / Fefen – Sapore Solar Lanterns 800Truk Lagoon / Fefen – Kukku Solar Lanterns 300Truk Lagoon / Uman – Sapota Solar Lanterns 500Truk Lagoon / Fanapanges Solar Lanterns 300Truk Lagoon / Fonoton Solar Lanterns 300Truk Lagoon / Tol – Central Wonip Solar Lanterns 300Truk Lagoon / Tol ‐ Munien Solar Lanterns 150Lekinioch Solar Lanterns 500Oneop Solar Lanterns 250
Yap Ulithi-Falalop / High‐School PV Mini‐grid / 62.7 kWp 1Ulithi-MogMog(island grid) PV Mini‐grid / 48 kWp 1Woleai ‐ Falalop PV‐Diesel Hybrid / 41 kWp (existing generator) 1Fais PV Micro‐grids / 15 kWp (2) ‐ 19 kWp (1) 3Satawal PV Micro‐grids / 15 kWp (4) 4
Source: North REP Request for Proposal and YSPSC
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
25
Table 6: PV systems to be installed under Energy Facility II (YAP)
STATE Atoll‐Island Population Type of system Approx. number of systems
Yap Ngulu 26 Solar Home Systems – 500 Wp PVstand-alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
5 1
Woleai – Falalus 146 Solar Home Systems – 500 Wp PVstand-alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
20 2
Woleai – Siliap 94 Solar Home Systems – 500 Wp PVstand-alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
20 2
Woleai – Tagailap 119 Solar Home Systems – 500 Wp PVstand-alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
20 2
Woleai – Wattagai 122 Solar Home Systems – 500 Wp PVstand-alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
25 2
Euripik 113 Solar Home Systems – 500 Wp PVstand-alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
21 2
Faraulap – Falalap 141 Solar Home Systems – 500 Wp PVstand-alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
25 2
Faraulap – Pigue 80 Solar Home Systems – 500 Wp PVstand-alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
20 1
Elato 96 Solar Home Systems – 500 Wp PVstand-alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
20 2
Ifalik 561 Solar Home Systems – 500 Wp PVstand-alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
90 2
Lamotrek 339 Solar Home Systems – 500 Wp PVstand-alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
70 2
Total Solar Home Systems 336 Total Stand-Alone Systems for Public Facilities 20
Source: EFIIpaper and YSPSC
Table 6: PV systems to be installed under Compact Funding (Chuuk)
STATE Atoll‐Island Type of system number of systems
Chuuk Truk Lagoon / Romum -Winisi PV stand-alone system for dispensary – 1.1 kWp 1 Truk Lagoon / Sapore - Fefan PV stand-alone system for dispensary – 1.1 kWp 1 Truk Lagoon / Parum - Nukanap PV stand-alone system for dispensary – 1.1 kWp 1 Truk Lagoon / Fefen - Ununno PV stand-alone system for dispensary – 1.1 kWp 1 Truk Lagoon / Fonoton - Sapota PV stand-alone system for dispensary – 1.1 kWp 1
Source: FSM Programme Management Unit
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
26
3.5 TrainingTraining is of major importance for all four states. The trainings completed to date have all been linked
to projects, but there is a need for a more structured approach whereby technicians receive yearly
training and update courses.
There is the current initiative /collaboration between North‐REP and COM‐FSM to institutionalize
training programmes at the COM‐FSM.
3.6 KeyIssueswithexistingProgramme/Installations
3.6.1 NonpaymentoffeesThere are currently no SHS household electrification programmes in FSM that have an operating fee
collection system. The SHS installed in Pohnpei were handed over to the users and no maintenance is
done by an outside agency. The householders purchase their own replacement batteries (mainly marine
and car batteries) and keep the systems running. Most of the householders have never received a
replacement battery after the original one broke down despite having paid fees that were supposed to
cover such replacements. In the first year, the collection rate reached almost 100% but this figure
dropped dramatically in the years that followed. The third year saw, on average, a collection percentage
of less than 50%.
Pohnpei Utility is interested to install PV mini‐grids on the islands using pre‐paid meters for fee
payments; they are not interested in installing or maintaining small solar home systems due to Pohnpei
Utility’s previous bad experience with fee collection. According to PUC, an electrification programme
using SHS managed by PUC cannot be economically sustainable due to the remoteness of sites and the
limited amount of households on each island.
To date there have been no SHS programs implemented in Chuuk. CPUC had indicated that a
programme to install SHS has a very low priority. However some private SHS systems have been
installed. In the past, CPUC had a diesel grid on one of the lagoon islands and had to stop supplying the
people due to the high operational costs and high fuel cost, another version was that there was a land
dispute at the powerhouse site and lack of payment from customers . According to CPUC they would be
interested in PV mini‐grids or diesel/PV hybrid systems if the households were able to be connected
with pre‐paid meters as has been done in Yap.
In Yap, YSPSC has moved into a massive outer island electrification programme that will electrify each
island and household in Yap. YSPSC has until now never implemented a SHS programme but some of
these systems have been installed in the past in Satawal. For these systems, the community was
supposed to take care of the fee collection and maintenance of the systems.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
27
Off‐grid solar PV systems were introduced several years (more than 10 years) ago in Satawal, most of
the solar systems were funded via a French grant. The systems previously installed can be split up into 4
different types:
Solar Home Systems: providing electricity for each house mainly for lights;
Solar Freezer System: provides power for two freezers;
Stand‐alone System on the school providing electricity for the computer lab and some lights;
Stand‐alone System installed on the dispensary for the SSB radio, a DC‐powered mini‐refrigerator for
vaccines and some lights;
One of the challenges faced was to keep the specific personnel who were trained under the French
grant and be responsible for O&M of most of the systems to remain on the island as there was no
budget set aside to provide these people with a regular income. The trained technicians left Satawal and
found jobs elsewhere. Besides that, there was no ongoing capacity building programme that would
enable other people to be trained as replacement technicians. The project also provided 20 additional
SHS that could have been used for spare parts but with time, these systems were installed on some of
the houses as well. The initial approach of the project was successful and the community enjoyed the
lighting for as many years as the original batteries lasted.
At the present time, most of the solar panels provided are in perfect condition while the other
components (charge regulators, light fixtures, wiring, and batteries) need to be replaced. Due to the
latter circumstance, the people have stopped paying the fees and have had to rely on money and parts
from overseas family members to keep the systems operating. For those systems where the batteries
have been connected directly to the panels, the battery life has been reduced (2years instead of 5‐
8years). Because of these factors, most of the systems at the present time do not operate as they are
supposed to.
In 2001 the French government funded solar home systems for a total of 50 households. The
configuration of these systems are:
1‐54Wp solar panel
1‐10A Total Energie regulator
1‐12V sealed 85Ah battery Oldham 12RGTS85
2‐ 8W tube type fluorescent lights
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
28
Beyond this French project grant, the local community purchased 10 systems with a $10,000 grant from
the Yap State Legislature which was supposedly appropriated for the purchase of wooden poles on
which the systems were to be mounted.
Also in the same year a community freezer system was installed consisting of:
12‐50Wp solar panels
1‐30A RMP regulator
1‐sealed 24V 545Ah battery bank, Oldham 2EGS545 (2V)
1‐24V‐12V DC converter for lights
6‐8W fluorescent tube type lights
2‐200 litre refrigerator/freezer Total Energie TCS‐200
The system was initially under the operational control of a local solar committee and local maintenance
personnel were trained by the contractor. Today, most of the systems are not working as there are no
parts available on the island. However the SHS and freezer system served the community for years.
Surveys and interviews undertaken between 2008 and 2012 in various outer islands of Pohnpei, Chuuk
and Yap indicated that the majority of villagers are willing to make the payments however there were
some system owners who felt that since the Government got the systems for nothing—why should they
have to pay? These are the same sentiments heard in other Pacific places example e.g. RMI. Another
seems to be that even when people pay the fees they almost never have received replacement batteries
and there is little confidence that the payments will in fact result in the sustained service that is being
paid for.
The challenges faced over the years relating to the collections of fees can be summed up as follows:
o The fee payment is to be made in cash to the technicians who are then required to transfer the
money to the utility or government office in the main island centres of Pohnpei, Chuuk or Yap
when the boat visits the island.
o Alternatively the system owner can arrange to have a relative make their system payment
directly to the office if they have relatives living in the island centres.
o The issues making the execution of payments difficult include:
Not all householders have cash when the payments are due.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
29
Not all technicians have been consistent in trying to get the payments.
The boats are infrequent and hence the people do not want to pay the technician each
month if the boat is not due for a while.
When the boat has arrived at the island, the householders still might not have the cash
and/or the technician is unable to collect all the fees before the boat leaves again.
3.6.2 ChallengesforSolarHomeSystemsDespite the positive impacts from these systems, solar PV electrification programmes in FSM faces
sustainability challenges. The installed solar systems work well for the first 3 years because during that
period adequate and trained human resources are locally available to maintain and manage the systems
and the battery still in good shape.
During that period the development partners and suppliers are still in contact with the communities
while the systems are handed over to the local communities or service providers and some provide
technical guidance.
However due to the remoteness of the villages, often this sort of technical support disappears leaving
the communities handling any difficulties alone. In many cases after three or four years the systems are
not functioning properly and are simply abandoned because there is no money to purchase the new
batteries as was intended.
Why does this happen when these projects are being done with local sustainability in mind?
The challenges faced can be summed‐up in three points:
1. Cost of PV energy delivery
Life time of PV panels is 20‐30 years
Batteries lifetime depends on type and usage. In SHS we see the lifetime of a battery
ranging from 3‐6 years while in bigger systems the battery lifetime can be from 8 – 10
years.
DC lights and charge controllers (regulators) have an average lifetime of 5 years
Without a fee collection (tariff) set to cover the replacement of parts, systems will stop
working due to the lack of funds available to purchase reliable and suitable parts.
Even with good fee collection there must be some process in place that prevents collected
fees from being used for unintended purposes so that when parts fail there is money
available for their replacement.
2. Unregulated market for PV
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
30
No guidelines exist for industry and development partners in many countries to ensure that quality
systems and components are being used. This can be a reason for systems failing prematurely. Keep in
mind that cost recovery for a PV system is very important and these cost recovery calculations are in
many cases based on a certain expected lifetime. If the lifetime is shorter than expected, the service
operator will not have the money needed to provide the replacement and/or service even when fees are
collected and funds managed properly.
.
3. Institutional Programme Management
Without sound institutional programme management, it will be very difficult to provide the O&M for the
installed systems. There is a misconception amongst many people that Low Maintenance is the same as
No Maintenance. Regular checking of the systems and cleaning of the panels and other equipment are
critical for to a longer lifetime. Many institutions involved in O&M of SHS carry out other activities which
they consider of a higher priority and fail to provide even basic maintenance for the PV systems.
An important part of the institutional set‐up is the availability of spare‐parts and components like fuses,
DC lights, regulators, wire, inverters etc., but also an ongoing training and awareness campaign is
required, ensuring proper use of the solar systems and the availability of sufficient local, trained
personnel who stays in the outer islands.
Most of the installed systems in FSM are funded under grant programmes were well designed and the
systems worked for several years. Unfortunately after a couple of years, problems arose as there were
not enough spare and replacement parts, e.g. DC lights, regulators and solar batteries, available on the
islands. The maintenance and fee collection ceased after a few years and the villagers occasionally
received new batteries from relatives living in the urban areas.
In most of the islands that had received SHS, it was clear that the installation of SHS does not positively
impact on income generation, because electricity is not used for income generation activities but for
lighting only. Previously some of the SHS users had difficulties in paying the monthly fee because they
lived in a subsistence economy with little cash income. As a result, even though the SHS will make life
easier, it will not have a great impact on improving their livelihood. As the family wealth depends on
fish, coconuts and copra, to pay the monthly fee in currency is not sustainable in the long run for each
household. And also when the fee charged for the SHS is greater than the existing combined cost of
kerosene for lighting and batteries for radios.
Other challenges faced as part of the household electrification programmes in Pohnpei are the same
challenges as seen in other islands, e.g. in the Marshall Islands.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
31
3.6.4 SystemsnotbeingdisconnectedIn many cases there was no clear policy in place for system disconnection but in fact the policy was
rarely followed.
Pohnpei had the following policy: When people did not pay for 60 days, the trained technicians were
supposed to disconnect the systems.
The method of system disconnection was at the panels, but as some systems were roof mounted,
technicians were not allowed to get on the roofs. Regulators were removed, but as the systems were
provided with their own batteries, the panels and batteries could be directly connected. Unfortunately
all these systems of disconnection resulted in the batteries being damaged due to a cessation of
charging.
Another challenge was that the end‐users in some islands were related to or friends with the technicians
who then felt pressured to leave the system connected.
3.6.5 NoPoolofFundsforbuyingreplacementpartsIn the early stages of the programme, spare parts were provided. After these parts were used, the
person in charge of the solar systems (utility or state agency) had difficulty in finding similar parts on the
market. The lack of technical know‐how also created the problem that in some cases the incorrect parts
were ordered. Parts are then not available for months or years which leave the system in disarray.
Another problem is that the utilities do not have any funds to purchase replacement equipment. The fee
that they collect is not enough to purchase parts in the first years and when time is due they don’t have
enough to buy batteries to replace the broken ones. It is also common for funds that are collected to be
used for other purposes and not accumulated in a separate account just for the purpose of battery
replacement.
3.6.6 PoorTransportandpoorCommunicationsIn all discussions, the issue of poor transportation (between the islands) and poor communications were
cited constantly as affecting the collection of fees, the despatch of spare parts and even attempts to
train the technicians. Although there were boats travelling to the islands, the schedules appeared
irregular which resulted in the “poor” transport. Communications on many of the islands are still only by
radio, but this is slowly improving.
3.6.7StandAlonePVSystemsforPublicFacilitiesFor the larger stand‐alone systems installed on schools, dispensaries etc., the same challenges as
discussed above were obvious. They can be summed‐up as follows:
In REP5 the project management team calculated the flat‐rate to cover the replacement costs of the
equipment required for the school and dispensary systems installed in Chuuk and Pohnpei, in particular
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
32
the batteries. These rates were in the order of $350 per month depending on the size of the systems. In
Chuuk, CPUC had an agreement with Chuuk State DOE and DOH for a flat rate of $360/ building. CPUC
invoiced these rates to the Department of Education; however the department had not budgeted for
this and thus no payments were made. In Pohnpei, the utility is not involved but an agreement was
made between the State Energy Office and the Department of Education and Health to budget the
monthly fee, the MOU requires the Department to cover the replacement costs for the equipment. At
this point of time, no money has been allocated as funding by the Department. Since the O&M cost for a
stand‐alone solar system is mostly related to capital cost and very little related to kWh delivered, a fixed
monthly fee for battery replacement plus other costs of O&M is appropriate for solar derived electricity.
Note that most countries do not depreciate the solar panels since their service life has been found to
substantially exceed 20 years and the cost of replacement panels is highly likely to be much lower than
that paid at the time of installation. The cost of panels has already fallen well below the cost at the time
of the first round of outer island installations.
In the discussion held with the Departments of Education and Health, both in Chuuk and Pohnpei, it was
clear that the fee was not an issue if they had included it in the budget. It is clear that some guidance for
the Departments to be included in the budget would be advisable.
3.6.8 NoOngoingTrainingProgrammeReports written over the last few years have all identified that technicians need on‐going training. This
was confirmed in the discussions with all the utilities. The initial training is undertaken during the
installation of the systems and some on‐going training is provided when the technicians visit the islands,
however there is no structured plan for the on‐going training of the technicians. The technicians are
scattered throughout the islands but travel is identified as one of the barriers to conducting training.
Any programme would require specific training for the technicians who maintain the larger systems
installed on the schools. These systems include more complicated inverters, controllers and 2 Volt wet
lead acid batteries. The controllers and inverters at times might require program settings to be
monitored, while the 2Volt batteries require specific gravity readings to be taken at least monthly and
distilled water to be added when required. These extra skills require specialised training in addition to
the standard maintenance of a SHS.
3.6.9ProblemsExperiencedandProposedImprovementsThe points mentioned below were gathered after discussions with the technical people for the utilities
in charge of the outer island systems and Mr. Actouka.
1. Decentralized/Stand‐Alone Solar Home Systems (SHS) on Remote Islands:
Limited/lack of public land available for centralized PV systems;
The removal of land previously used for food crops to install the PV Power generating
plant would impact on the livelihood of island residents;
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
33
Pohnpei Utilities Corporation (PUC) proposed a floating PV Power Generating Plant for
remote islands.
2. Installed Capacities of Household PV systems were insufficient to meet household needs
Most systems installed used three x 13 watt fluorescent lights and rest were two x 15
watt fluorescent lights
Some systems were two x 55 watt, one x 75 watt, or one x 100 watt panel
Increased capacities needed for: entertainment (TV & VCR, radios, etc.), refrigeration,
washing machine for water conservation, longer hours of lighting use, etc.
Proposed for the Main Island of Pohnpei is AC SHS for remote households or (maybe
centralized) AC/grid‐connected in villages to sell excess power to the utility
3. Conversion from DC to AC
DC fluorescent ballasts & fixtures, sizes and types, not available in local hardware stores
DC refrigeration/freezing equipment are expensive and also not available in local
hardware stores
Limited use of DC PV power systems compared to AC power
High Energy Efficient Rating (EER) appliances and lights are available in AC and in local
hardware stores
AC energy efficient equipment is readily available locally and is cheaper than DC
equipment
All systems, except in 2008 &2009, were DC and have insufficient and inadequate
capacities
Systems on Pingelap, Mwoakilloa, Parem and Lenger, Pakin, and Sapwuahfik can be
refurbished with increased capacities and converted to AC
4. Battery:
Single 12 volt batteries can easily be tampered with by taking it out for night fishing, etc.
o Batteries discharged beyond its dischargeable limit and therefore limits its life
and recharging takes a longer time
o Batteries which are not maintenance free at times have been filled with
contaminated ordinary tap or rain water
o Sealed/maintenance free batteries did not last long due to the high ambient
temperature where the batteries were installed
o Two x 6 volts or six (6) 2 volt cell batteries are heavier and would be harder to
move them around
5. PUC establish a private institution or agency to operate and maintain the systems for
sustainability:
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
34
Customers were not willing to pay and the residents’ ability to pay was not assessed
Solar Committees which were established failed to function as anticipated to collect
tariffs and set policies because board members included politicians
Solar Committee members if women wereprone to be more sustainable because they
utilize the solar lighting nightly and appreciate the benefit, etc.
Trained technicians were not committed to project maintenance; salaries should be
based on minimum hourly wage
6. Project sustainability
More aggressive Public Awareness and Education Programme on Energy Efficiency and
Conservation
Projects should be community based – while this would be an option that is worthwhile
to look into still the challenge would remain with the fee collection and O&M. There are
example in the outer islands that have started “community based” and still are not
sustainable, examples are the SHS in Satawal, PV freezers systems in Pingelap and other
islands, etc. The Pingelap municipality is initiation a new community based PV project,
PV‐Hybrid system for coconut grinders. These projects can work if well organised and a
community based (?) RESCO is set‐up that has the technical capacity to operate,
maintain and replace parts.
Project must be gender oriented – it was mentioned that training women for the day‐to‐
day maintenance is a more stable approach as men most of time leave the island after
being trained.
Stakeholders must have greater input and participation from conception, planning, and
implementation
Provide systems with higher capacities to meet the household needs in case of solar
home systems or for the ones who cannot afford to pay higher fees PICO solar systems
or lanterns might be a better solution.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
35
4 FinancialAnalysis
4.1 GeneralIn three of the four FSM states (Yap, Chuuk and Pohnpei) small scale outer island electrification
programmes have been undertaken over a period of more than twenty years. Most of these projects
had a focus on solar but diesel grids have also been installed and operated in Chuuk (Satawan and
Tonoas) and are still in operation in Yap (Mogmog, Falalop, Woleai). In Pohnpei (Mwoakilloa, Pingelap,
Pakin, Sapwuafik) and Yap (Satawal) Solar Home Systems have been installed; in all three states, solar
stand alone systems for public facilities and in Chuuk (Moch and Onoun) and Yap PV mini‐grids (Asor and
Faderai) were installed.
The projects installed with SHS have not resulted in a sustainable approach. While the systems were on
average well designed, had a fee collection programme, as well as trained, committed technicians for
the operation and maintenance, still none had an equipment replacement scheme in place and the fee
collection stopped after the first years. The diesel grids in Chuuk have stopped providing power to the
households mainly because of the high cost of bringing diesel fuel to the islands and the diesel grids in
Yap are facing challenges as the cost per kWh peaked to USD 1.06 making it difficult for the households
to stay connected.
Generally speaking, there is not enough long term experience with solar energy in FSM and there is a
challenge of collecting the fees that is needed for adequate O&M as well as replacement parts.
This chapter will present the financial considerations suggested for sustaining the existing systems and
will discuss ways how the collection of fees and basic O&M can be performed. The Chapter will discuss
each state separately as they have their own specific challenges and characteristics.
4.1.1KOSRAEThe only solar stand‐alone system in Kosrae was installed in 2001 in Utwe‐Walung Marine Park (UWMP),
a conservation area just located between Utwe and Walung. There are eighteen x 110Wp 12V modules
arranged in pairs giving a 1,980Wp array of 24V nominal. The system was installed by KUA but the
operation and maintenance was handled by the UWMP staff during the first years of operation, but
after that no service had been done. The system is currently in disarray and needs new wiring, batteries,
inverter and controllers. Unfortunately no money was ever put aside for replacement parts resulting in
the UWMP management currently looking for new funding to refurbish the system.
The only village that is not electrified in Kosrae is Walung. The North REP together with KUA has started
a programme to electrify households using PICO Lighting Systems that consist of two lights, three lights
and four lights. Also a stand‐alone PV system will be installed on the school in Walung. In contrast with
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
36
the UWMP system, these new systems will be maintained by KUA and a fee collection programme will
be included.
4.1.1.1MonthlyFeeanalysisfor‘FeeforService’Model–SchoolSystemThe fee collection for the school system could use a fee‐for‐service model, where KUA get a fee for
servicing the systems and is responsible for the operation of the system while the budget for the
required replacement of the batteries would be the responsibility of the owner of the systems, Kosrae
State. In that scenario KUA will also take the responsibility to maintain and replace the electronics, for
example the inverter and charge controller after the breakdown.
The main advantage of this scenario is that the Department of Education can treat the battery bank as a
capital investment and write the battery bank off over an 8 year period. In year 9, they will include the
value of a new battery bank in their annual budget and, with that money they will buy the new
batteries. The monthly fee will stay at a rate or is lower than what they are used to for the other schools
on the island.
A disadvantage could be when the department does not include the cost of the new batteries in their
budget or when the battery bank dies earlier than expected. It is thus important to choose a reasonable
but conservative anticipated life for the batteries.
An analysis of required monthly fees has been undertaken for the scenarios shown in table 14.
Table 14‐ Four Scenarios Used in Analysis
Scenario Equipment Replacement assumptions
1 O&M, Controller and Inverter replacement (every 8 years) by KUA/ battery replacement by DOE
2 a Controller and inverter replaced every 8 years, batteries every 8 years, and O&M by KUA
2 b Controller and inverter replaced every 8 years, batteries every 10 years, and O&M by KUA
3 Flat rate that covers O&M as well as the replacement of controller and inverter (without panels)
4 Flat rate that covers O&M as well as the replacement of controller batteries and inverter (without panels)
Replacing controllers every 8 years has been assumed based on the harsh climatic environment,
however field experience indicates that they could last 10 years plus. These tables hopefully are
reflecting worst case expenses.
The following assumptions are used:
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
37
System: Stand‐Alone 48 V – 6 kWp
Price per 2V Battery: USD 800 (USD 3.20/Wp)
Cost battery bank: USD 19,200 (USD 800 x 24)
Inverter cost: USD 6,000 (USD 1000/kW)
BOS: USD 1,000
Sales of kWh based on 50% usage.
Scenario 1)
Model without battery replacement
kWh tariff $ 0.20 $ 0.25 $ 0.30 $ 0.60 $ 0.65 $ 0.70 $ 0.75 $ 0.80
income (year) $ 986 $ 1,232 $ 1,478 $ 2,957 $ 3,203 $ 3,449 $ 3,696 $ 3,942
Yearly cost (replacement) $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700 $ 700
Yearly cost (O&M) $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600
Profit (loss) $ (315) $ (68) $ 178 $ 1,657 $ 1,903 $ 2,149 $ 2,396 $ 2,642
Scenario 2a)
Model incl. battery replacement (8 years)
kWh tariff $ 0.20 $ 0.25 $ 0.30 $ 0.60 $ 0.65 $ 0.70 $ 0.75 $ 0.80
income (year) $ 986 $ 1,232 $ 1,478 $ 2,957 $ 3,203 $ 3,449 $ 3,696 $ 3,942
Yearly cost (replacement) $ 3,100 $ 3,100 $ 3,100 $ 3,100 $ 3,100 $ 3,100 $ 3,100 $ 3,100
Yearly cost (O&M) $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600
Profit (loss) $ (2,715) $(2,468) $ (2,222) $ (744) $ (497) $ (251) $ (4) $ 242
Scenario 2b)
Model incl. battery replacement (10 years)
kWh tariff $ 0.20 $ 0.25 $ 0.30 $ 0.60 $ 0.65 $ 0.70 $ 0.75 $ 0.80
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
38
Assumptions:
Cost battery bank: USD 19,200 (USD 800 x 24)
Inverter cost: USD 6,000 (USD 1000/kW)
BOS: USD 1,000
Scenario 3)
Monthly Flat Rate Model without battery replacement
Cost of replacement parts: USD 7,000
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost (8 years) USD 11,500
Cost per year: USD 1,438
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 120
Note: the Department of Education will have to budget for the cost of replacing the battery – every 8
years.
Scenario 4)
Monthly Flat Rate Model incl. battery replacement (8 years)
Cost of system without the panels: USD 26,200
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost of the system (8 years) USD 30,700
Cost per year: USD 3,875
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 323
The approach used is common in many countries, which is not to depreciate the panels since (a) they
will still work well although at a somewhat degraded output after 20 years; and (b) the rapid decrease in
panel prices makes it inappropriate to charge the initial price as the basis for replacement cost; and (c)
there is no reason to charge the customers for the panels if the project is changed to another mode of
electrification in 20 years or even drastically changed to a larger system. Whatever is done in 20 years
will almost certainly include solar energy in some way so the old panels can continue to be used along
with additional new ones.
income (year) $ 986 $ 1,232 $ 1,478 $ 2,957 $ 3,203 $ 3,449 $ 3,696 $3,942
Yearly cost (replacement) $ 2,620 $ 2,620 $ 2,620 $ 2,620 $ 2,620 $ 2,620 $ 2,620 $2,620
Yearly cost (O&M) $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600
Profit / loss $ (2,235) $ (1,988) $ (1,742) $ (264) $ (17) $ 229 $ 476 $ 722
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
39
A kWh rate that covers the O&M costs and the replacement of the inverter and BOS was mentioned by
the Department of Education and KUA as a more favourable option. The rate would be somewhere
between 25 and 30 cents per kWh. The battery replacement would then remain with Kosrae State (DOE)
who would then allocate a yearly budget of $2,600 for this purpose. KUA would then be responsible for
the O&M and would put money aside to replace the inverters and other parts belonging to the Balance
of System. Replacing broken parts like the panels and batteries that are still under warrantee would be
handled by KUA.
If the cost of the battery bank replacement is included in the kWh tariff, the rate would increase to 70 –
80 USD cents. Besides the high kWh rate for the school in Walung, there is a risk for KUA if the system is
underused: then a reduced quantity of kWh’s would be purchased by the school compared to the
economic assumption made in the calculation. For example, if the usage is only 30% due to the holidays
and fewer students in the future, the kWh rate would have to be between USD 1.20 and USD 1.30 to be
able to recover the battery replacement cost.
Scenario 3 is an option that would be financially safest for KUA and best fits the real cost of the systems
which is capital based, not usage based. By charging a flat rate they will not be affected when the
electricity use of the school reduced during vacations, weekends or if the school has fewer students and
does not utilize all the classrooms. By charging a monthly flat rate that covers all the parts (besides the
batteries) and includes the cost for O&M, the utility will be able to ensure that at the end of year 8 all
parts can be replaced if needed.
Scenario 4 would work as well, but the monthly fee could be too steep for the school but would
definitely be a viable option to consider. It would, however, place battery replacements as a KUA
responsibility and carries a risk for KUA should the school use patterns result in a need for an early
battery replacement.
4.1.1.2MonthlyFeeanalysisfor‘FeeforService’Model–PICOLightingSystemUnder the North REP, Walung Village will receivePico Solar Lighting Systems (PSLS) as well as the above
mentioned Stand alone system for the school.
Two fee collection scenarios have been considered for the PSLS:
Scenario 1: Rent‐to‐own approach where the system can be paid off in two or a maximum of 6
instalments. KUA is willing to be the facilitator of such a payment system as long as they have spare‐
parts or replacement parts available.
Scenario 2: Fee for Service where the users pay KUA a monthly flat rate for the service of the systems.
Just recently the North REP together with KUA have launched a request for quotation and selected the
Pico Solar Lighting System (PSLS) for this project. It was recommended to have different packages
available for the end–users, so that they can choose whichever package best suits their needs.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
40
Type PSLS: 2 lights 3 lights 4 lights Price per PSLS: USD 128 USD 149 USD 163 Servicing per month: USD 5 USD 5 USD 5
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐Final Report‐RMI
41
Scenario 1)
6 monthly instalments
2 lights PSLS 1st instalment
2nd instalment
3rd instalment
4th instalment
5th instalment
6th instalment
Price per PSLS USD 128 USD 21.33 USD 21.33 USD 21.33 USD 21.33 USD 21.33 USD 21.33 Service USD 30 USD 5 USD 5 USD 5 USD 5 USD 5 USD 5 Total USD 158 USD 26.33 USD 26.33 USD 26.33 USD 26.33 USD 26.33 USD 26.33
3 lights PSLS 1st instalment
2nd instalment
3rd instalment
4th instalment
5th instalment
6th instalment
Price per PSLS USD 149 USD 24.83 USD 24.83 USD 24.83 USD 24.83 USD 24.83 USD 24.83 Service USD 30 USD 5 USD 5 USD 5 USD 5 USD 5 USD 5 Total USD 158 USD 29.83 USD 29.83 USD 29.83 USD 29.83 USD 29.83 USD 29.83
4 lights PSLS 1st instalment
2nd instalment
3rd instalment
4th instalment
5th instalment
6th instalment
Price per PSLS USD 163 USD 27.17 USD 27.17 USD 27.17 USD 27.17 USD 27.17 USD 27.17 Service USD 30 USD 5 USD 5 USD 5 USD 5 USD 5 USD 5 Total USD 193 USD 32.17 USD 32.17 USD 32.17 USD 32.17 USD 32.17 USD 32.17
Scenario 2
2 lights PSLS 3 lights PSLS 4 lights PSLS
Loan Principal USD 128 USD 149 USD 162 Annual Percentage Rate 2% 2% 2% Length in months 24 24 24 Service fee USD 5 USD 5 USD 5
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
42
Monthly fee for PSLS USD 5.32 USD 6.21 USD 6.81
Total Monthly Rate: USD 10.32 USD 11.21 USD 11.81 Note: table based on data from North REP
Both scenarios have advantages and disadvantages. Basically scenario 1 and 2 use the same principle, but the payback terms are different. It
would be advisable to keep the payback time as short as possible so that KUA has no long term commitment to maintain these PSLS. O&M for
these systems is limited but KUA will need spare and replacement parts to make the programme sustainable. The tariff charged should cover
the purchase of replacement parts. After the PSLS are paid for, under either scenario KUA can consider giving the customer the option to
upgrade the system by adding either another PSLS or by adding lights or small appliances.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐Final Report‐RMI
43
4.1.2POHNPEINumerous solar projects have been implemented in the outer islands of Pohnpei. See table 2 for the
details. Most of these projects have failed due to lack of maintenance and services. The major problem
for this was that there was no budget allocation for O&M, and after the first couple of years, the fee
collection process ceased. The collection rate went from 100% to less than 40% in three years and
ultimately disappeared completely.
In Pingelap (129 SHS installed in 1996), the O&M of the PV systems was with PUC and in 2001 they
replaced the batteries and charge controllers. People were required to pay USD $5/month. Maintenance
problems experienced by PUC were related to the fact that people tampered with the system (used
batteries for fishing, connected inverters, by‐passed the controllers etc). For these systems, only 50% of
the customers paid their fees. Also other SHS projects in Pohnpei failed due to lack of funds to replace
parts resulting from the poor fee collection.
Under the REP‐5, several stand‐alone systems were installed on schools and dispensaries. The utility
(PUC) had informed the Government that they were not interested in doing the O&M of these systems
as they viewed it as a burden for their current operations. That basically meant that PUC had no more
outer island installations and thus no technicians appointed. Still the management of PUC has indicated
that if there is a solid fee structure in place, they would reconsider their stand on this point. As
confirmation that they still are interested in PV installations, they have sent some of the PUC technicians
to various training courses.
The Pohnpei State Office of Transportation & Infrastructure hosts the energy office. At the time of the
review, the position of energy officer was vacant. All the REP‐5 systems are handed over to the state
government and DOE with DOH are the responsible departments. Some maintenance had been done by
DOE who had sent technicians to the islands and have sent distilled water to top‐up the batteries. DOE
and DOH had contracted a local solar company (Green Energy Solutions), who had installed the systems,
to replace broken parts and do check‐up on the systems.
During the REP‐5, agreements were made between the Energy Office and the Education and Health
Department that they had to budget for replacement parts. A monthly fee of USD$350 / month was
mentioned. So far both departments have not included this in their budget.
The following points where mentioned during the interviews with DOE:
1. Pohnpei State Department of Education has been doing some basic maintenance, e.g. sending
water with the boats to be added to the batteries and providing some check‐ups on the system.
2. Willingness to include maintenance costs into budgets, but needed to know exactly how much.
3. Currently the annual budget for utilities on schools is $154,000 and this was for 38 schools, so
that is approximately $4000 annually per school. However the individual schools will start to
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
44
provide their own budgets so the actual cost will vary dependent on the size of the school. It
was mentioned that the outer island schools can be included in next year’s budget.
4. The department had sent some of their staff to the recent operations and maintenance training
course conducted at COM (funded through North‐REP). This staff would be used to provide
servicing on outer the islands.
5. Assistance would be needed to calculate the budget for the O&M and replacement of the
batteries of the PV systems.
4.1.2.1MonthlyFeeanalysisfor‘FeeforService’Model–SchoolandDispensarySystemsPohnpei has installed during REP‐5 in total ten (10) PV stand‐alone systems on five (5) different islands.
The table below shows the system size and island.
State Location Size of Array
Approximate date of
Installation Pohnpei Pingelap School 6.2 kWp 2008
Dispensary 2.5 kWp 2008 Mwoakilloa School 6.1 kWp 2008
Dispensary 2.5 kWp 2008 Sapwuafik School / municipal office 7.5 kWp 2008
Dispensary 3.0 kWp 2008 Nukuoro School 4.6 kWp 2008
Dispensary 3.0 kWp 2008 Kapingamarangi School 5.8 kWp 2008
Dispensary 4.0 kWp 2008
The following assumptions are used:
System: Stand‐Alone 48 V
Price per 2V Battery: USD 3.20/Wp
Inverter cost: USD 1000/kW
BOS: USD 1,000
SAPWUAFIK SCHOOL SYSTEM (7.5 kWp)
Cost battery bank: USD 26,250 (USD 1094 x 24)
Inverter cost: USD 6,000 (USD 1000/kW)
BOS: USD 1,000
Scenario 1)
Monthly Flat Rate Model without battery replacement
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
45
Cost of replacement parts: USD 7,000
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost (8 years) USD 11,500
Cost per year: USD 1,438
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 120
Note: the Department of Education will have to budget an amount of USD$26,250for the cost of
replacing the battery – every 8 years.
Scenario 2)
Monthly Flat Rate Model incl. battery replacement (8 years)
Cost of system without the panels: USD 33,250
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost of the system (8 years) USD 37,750
Cost per year: USD 4,719
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 393
PINGELAP AND MWOAKILLOA SCHOOL SYSTEM (6.1 and 6.2 kWp)
Cost battery bank: USD 19,840 (USD 827 x 24)
Inverter cost: USD 6,000 (USD 1000/kW)
BOS: USD 1,000
Scenario 1)
Monthly Flat Rate Model without battery replacement
Cost of replacement parts: USD 7,000
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost (8 years) USD 11,500
Cost per year: USD 1,438
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 120
Note: the Department of Education will have to budget an amount of USD$19,840 for the cost of
replacing the battery – every 8 years.
Scenario 2)
Monthly Flat Rate Model incl. battery replacement (8 years)
Cost of system without the panels: USD 26,840
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost of the system (8 years) USD 31,340
Cost per year: USD 3,918
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 326
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
46
NUKUORO SCHOOL SYSTEM (4.6 kWp)
Cost battery bank: USD 16,100 (USD 671 x 24)
Inverter cost: USD 6,000 (USD 1000/kW)
BOS: USD 1,000
Scenario 1)
Monthly Flat Rate Model without battery replacement
Cost of replacement parts: USD 7,000
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost (8 years) USD 11,500
Cost per year: USD 1,438
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 120
Note: the Department of Education will have to budget an amount of USD$16,100 for the cost of
replacing the battery – every 8 years.
Scenario 2)
Monthly Flat Rate Model incl. battery replacement (8 years)
Cost of system without the panels: USD 23,100
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost of the system (8 years) USD 27,600
Cost per year: USD 3,450
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 288
KAPINGAMARANGI SCHOOL SYSTEM (5.8 kWp)
Cost battery bank: USD 20,300 (USD 846 x 24)
Inverter cost: USD 6,000 (USD 1000/kW)
BOS: USD 1,000
Scenario 1)
Monthly Flat Rate Model without battery replacement
Cost of replacement parts: USD 7,000
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost (8 years) USD 11,500
Cost per year: USD 1,438
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 120
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
47
Note: the Department of Education will have to budget an amount of USD$20,300 for the cost of
replacing the battery – every 8 years.
Scenario 2)
Monthly Flat Rate Model incl. battery replacement (8 years)
Cost of system without the panels: USD 27,300
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost of the system (8 years) USD 31,800
Cost per year: USD 3,975
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 331
In Scenario 1 the operation and maintenance could be outsourced to the utility or to a private solar
company who does the O&M and replacement of the inverters, controllers and breakers/fuses. The
replacement of the battery bank remains with the department.
Budgeting for the utility cost should not be a problem as they can treat the outer island schools the
same way as they treat the schools on the main island. On average, DOE allocated USD$4,000 per school
per year for utility (read ‘electricity’) charges. The cost of the PV systems fits within that amount.
DISPENSARY SYSTEMS
State Location Size of Array
Pohnpei Pingelap Mwoakilloa 2.5 kWp Sapwuafik Nukuoro 3.0 kWp
Kapingamarangi 4.0 kWp
PINGELAP & MWOAKILLOA SYSTEM (2.5 kWp)
Cost battery bank: USD 8,750 (USD 365 x 24)
Inverter cost: USD 6,000 (USD 1000/kW)
BOS: USD 1,000
Scenario 1)
Monthly Flat Rate Model without battery replacement
Cost of replacement parts: USD 7,000
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
48
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost (8 years) USD 11,500
Cost per year: USD 1,438
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 120
Note: the Department of Education will have to budget an amount of USD$8,750 for the cost of
replacing the battery – every 8 years.
Scenario 2)
Monthly Flat Rate Model incl. battery replacement (8 years)
Cost of system without the panels: USD 15,750
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost of the system (8 years) USD 20,250
Cost per year: USD 2,531
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 211
Sapwuafik & Nukuoro SYSTEM (3 kWp)
Cost battery bank: USD 10,500 (USD 438 x 24)
Inverter cost: USD 6,000 (USD 1000/kW)
BOS: USD 1,000
Scenario 1)
Monthly Flat Rate Model without battery replacement
Cost of replacement parts: USD 7,000
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost (8 years) USD 11,500
Cost per year: USD 1,438
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 120
Note: the Department of Education will have to budget an amount of USD$10,500 for the cost of
replacing the battery – every 8 years.
Scenario 2)
Monthly Flat Rate Model incl. battery replacement (8 years)
Cost of system without the panels: USD 17,500
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost of the system (8 years) USD 22,000
Cost per year: USD 2,750
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 229
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
49
KAPINGAMARANGI SYSTEM (4 kWp)
Cost battery bank: USD 14,000 (USD 583 x 24)
Inverter cost: USD 6,000 (USD 1000/kW)
BOS: USD 1,000
Scenario 1)
Monthly Flat Rate Model without battery replacement
Cost of replacement parts: USD 7,000
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost (8 years) USD 11,500
Cost per year: USD 1,438
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 120
Note: the Department of Education will have to budget an amount of USD$14,000for the cost of
replacing the battery – every 8 years.
Scenario 2)
Monthly Flat Rate Model incl. battery replacement (8 years)
Cost of system without the panels: USD 21,000
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost of the system (8 years) USD 25,500
Cost per year: USD 3,188
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 266
In scenario 1 the operation and maintenance could be outsourced to the utility or to a private solar
company who does the O&M and replacement of the inverters, controllers and breakers/fuses. The
replacement of the battery bank remains with the department.
Budgeting for the utility cost should not be a problem as they can treat the outer island schools the
same way as the health centres on the main island.
4.1.3CHUUKThe Chuuk State Outer Island Electrification Programme was limited to:
a diesel grid in Satawan owned and maintained by the Satawan Municipality,
the REP‐5 stand‐alone PV systems on the schools in Satawan and Udot and
two PV small mini‐grids, one in Moch connecting the School, Municipal office, Dispensary and
(currently) the church, and the other in Onoun connecting all public facilities.
Before the REP‐5 programme, some stand alone systems purchased by the Departments of Education
and Health were installed on schools and dispensaries. Besides these projects, numerous small scale
renewable energy projects involving PV, solar heating, wind and PV water‐pumps were installed in the
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
50
islands of Chuuk. Some of these projects are funded by individuals and others by the state government,
US and other development partners and agencies.
Although these projects were generally technical success stories in the short term, few survived in the
long run. These projects were not sustainable because of the following:
1. A lack of an O&M procedure and implementation plan
2. No available replacement parts
3. No budget provision to purchase the necessary parts.
In 1995, Chuuk State funded 56 solar home systems for the islands of Unanu, Makur and Onuo
(Namonweito Atoll). The systems were given to the households, but there was no fee collection process
put in place, nor were any arrangements made for maintenance. Some households kept the systems
operating while others abandoned them. During typhoons that struck the island group, several systems
were damaged. Currently only 5% of the systems in these islands are still working.
The majority of the Chuuk islands have no access to electricity and some householders have purchased
their own PV system and others bought generators. Most of the islands do have a solar system for the
VHF radio and on the dispensary. These systems are on average between 85 and 200 Wp and are
operated and maintained by the municipalities. If a battery runs down, a new one is provided by the
state government or by the Department of Health, in some cases even the whole system is replaced if
only a small part fails.
Under the REP‐5 programme, the utility (CPUC) undertook the O&M of the systems installed to ensure
the sustainability. CPUC staff was part of the installation and training and they started to do the O&M of
the systems. The North‐REP has continued this and with CPUC will install PV stand‐alone systems on
public facilities and provide 3400 solar lanterns to ca. 1700 students, one lantern for them to study after
sunset, one lantern for other household uses.
Besides the more sustainable approach of the North‐REP and REP‐5, other initiatives have been
explored. For example under the compact funded construction of dispensaries in the Truk Lagoon
islands, PV systems will be included. For these systems, no O&M agreements have been made nor a fee
collection programme set‐up. In the Mortlock islands, a senator has started a household electrification
programme using Pico Solar Lighting Systems. So far 400 of these PSLS have been distributed and
installed to the end‐users, but no arrangements have been made for replacement parts and the O&M.
Chuuk Truk Lagoon / Fefen – High School & Dispensary PV stand‐alone system – 14 kWp 1Truk Lagoon / Fefen – Elementary School PV stand‐alone system – 8 kWp 1Truk Lagoon / Uman – Elementary School PV stand‐alone system – 6 kWp 1
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
51
Truk Lagoon / Fanapanges – El. School & Dispensary PV stand‐alone system – 7 kWp 1Truk Lagoon / Fonoton – El. School & Dispensary PV stand‐alone system – 7 kWp 1Truk Lagoon / Tol – El. School (Central Wonip) PV stand‐alone system – 6 kWp 1Truk Lagoon / Tol – El. School (Munien) PV stand‐alone system – 4 kWp 1Lekinioch / Jr. High School and dispensary PV stand‐alone system – 11 kWp 1Oneop / Elementary School PV stand‐alone system – 6 kWp 1Truk Lagoon / Fefen – Sapore Solar Lanterns 800Truk Lagoon / Fefen – Kukku Solar Lanterns 300Truk Lagoon / Uman – Sapota Solar Lanterns 500Truk Lagoon / Fanapanges Solar Lanterns 300Truk Lagoon / Fonoton Solar Lanterns 300Truk Lagoon / Tol – Central Wonip Solar Lanterns 300Truk Lagoon / Tol ‐ Munien Solar Lanterns 150Lekinioch Solar Lanterns 500Oneop Solar Lanterns 250
So far for the REP‐5 systems, CPUC has agreed with the Departments of Education and Health on a flat‐
rate of USD$365/connected building. CPUC has sent a bill in March 2012 but have not yet received
payment as the departments didn’t have the budget allocation. During the interviews and meetings with
the energy workgroup and the departments, it was clear that the departments are willing to pay but
needed some assistance to work out the budgetary considerations.
For the North‐REP systems, CPUC and North‐REP had developed a payment structure comprising both a
flat rate and a kWh component.
4.1.3.1MonthlyFeeanalysisfor‘FeeforService’Model–SchoolSystemThe fee collection for the REP‐5 stand‐alone systems is now based on a flat rate per connected building.
This flat‐rate covers the O&M and the replacement of the BOS, inverters and batteries.
A fee‐for‐service model could be tried. In this type of arrangement, CPUC would get a fee for servicing
the systems and is responsible for the operation of the system. The needed budget for the replacement
of the batteries will be the responsibility of the owner of the systems, Chuuk State. In that scenario
CPUC will also take the responsibility to maintain and replace the electronics, like for example the
inverter and charge controller after the breakdown.
The flat‐rate currently charged, USD$365/connected building, can become an expensive exercise for the
department who has had to put aside thousands of dollars per month as some systems – Satawan,
Moch, Onoun – have more than one building connected. During the meeting with the department
representatives, it became clear that it would be preferable to treat the batteries as capital investment
that can be written off over the lifetime of the batteries, for example 8 years. In year 9 the department
will budget for a new battery bank to replace the old one.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
52
The following systems have been installed under the REP‐5 programme and are under the responsibility
of CPUC.
Chuuk Moch School/Dispensary 6.7 kWp 2009
Satawan High School 6.7 kWp 2009
Udot High School 3.5 kWp 2009
Onoun School/Dispensary/municipal office
11 kWp 2009
MOCH and SATAWAN SCHOOL SYSTEM (6.7 kWp)
Cost battery bank: USD 23,450 (USD 977 x 24)
Inverter cost: USD 6,000 (USD 1000/kW)
BOS: USD 1,000
Scenario 1)
Monthly Flat Rate Model without battery replacement
Cost of replacement parts: USD 7,000
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost (8 years) USD 11,500
Cost per year: USD 1,438
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 120
Note: the Department of Education will have to budget an amount of USD$23,450 for the cost of
replacing the battery – every 8 years.
Scenario 2)
Monthly Flat Rate Model incl. battery replacement (8 years)
Cost of system without the panels: USD 30,450
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost of the system (8 years) USD 34,950
Cost per year: USD 4,369
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 364
ONOUN MINI‐GRID (11 kWp)
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
53
Cost battery bank: USD 38,500 (USD 1,604 x 24)
Inverter cost: USD 12,000 (USD 1000/kW)
BOS: USD 2,000
Scenario 1)
Monthly Flat Rate Model without battery replacement
Cost of replacement parts: USD 12,000
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost (8 years) USD 16,500
Cost per year: USD 2,063
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 172
Note: the Department of Education will have to budget am amount of USD$38,500for the cost of
replacing the battery – every 8 years.
Scenario 2)
Monthly Flat Rate Model incl. battery replacement (8 years)
Cost of system without the panels: USD 50,500
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost of the system (8 years) USD 55,000
Cost per year: USD 6,875
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 573
The system in Onoun connects the elementary school, high school, dispensary, and doctor’s house to
the system. The flat rate should be split between the Department of Education and the Department of
Health where the DOE pays 2/3 or USD$382 month and the DOH USD$191/month. This split is based on
the load of the four main users of the system.
UDOT SCHOOL SYSTEM (3.6 kWp)
Cost battery bank: USD 12,250 (USD 510 x 24)
Inverter cost: USD 6,000 (USD 1000/kW)
BOS: USD 1,000
Scenario 1)
Monthly Flat Rate Model without battery replacement
Cost of replacement parts: USD 7,000
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost (8 years) USD 11,500
Cost per year: USD 1,438
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 120
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
54
Note: the Department of Education will have to budget an amount of USD$12,250for the cost of
replacing the battery – every 8 years.
Scenario 2)
Monthly Flat Rate Model incl. battery replacement (8 years)
Cost of system without the panels: USD 19,250
O & M over 8 year: USD 4,500
Total cost of the system (8 years) USD 23,750
Cost per year: USD 2,969
Monthly Flat Rate: USD 247
If the same scenarios would be followed for the North‐REP systems the fee structure would look as
follow:
Truk Lagoon / Fefen – High School & Dispensary PV stand‐alone system – 14 kWp Truk Lagoon / Fefen – Elementary School PV stand‐alone system – 8 kWp Truk Lagoon / Uman – Elementary School PV stand‐alone system – 6 kWp Truk Lagoon / Fanapanges – El. School & Dispensary PV stand‐alone system – 7 kWp Truk Lagoon / Fonoton – El. School & Dispensary PV stand‐alone system – 7 kWp Truk Lagoon / Tol – El. School (Central Wonip) PV stand‐alone system – 6 kWp Truk Lagoon / Tol – El. School (Munien) PV stand‐alone system – 4 kWp Lekinioch / Jr. High School and dispensary PV stand‐alone system – 11 kWp Oneop / Elementary School PV stand‐alone system – 6 kWp
Scenario 1)
PV Size Island/Village Cost system without panels
Cost O&M Total Total / year Total / month Cost of Battery Bank (each 8 years)
14 kWp Fefen USD 16,000 USD 4,500 USD 20,500 USD 2,563 USD 214 USD 49,00011 kWh Lekinioch USD 13,000 USD 4,500 USD 17,500 USD 2,188 USD 182 USD 38,5008 kWp Fefen USD 10,000 USD 4,500 USD 14,500 USD 1,813 USD 151 USD 28,0007 kWp Fanapanges
& Fonoton USD 10,000 USD 4,500 USD 14,500 USD 1,813 USD 151 USD 24,500
6 kWp Uman / Tol / Oneop
USD 7,000 USD 4,500 USD 11,500 USD 1,438 USD 120 USD 21,000
4 kWp Tol USD 7,000 USD 4,500 USD 11,500 USD 1,438 USD 120 USD 14,000
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
55
Scenario 2)
PV Size Island/Village Cost Replacement Parts
Cost O&M Total Total / year Total / month
14 kWp Fefen USD 65,000 USD 4,500 USD 69,500 USD 8,688 USD 72411 kWh Lekinioch USD 51,500 USD 4,500 USD 56,000 USD 7,000 USD 5838 kWp Fefen USD 38,000 USD 4,500 USD 42,500 USD 5,313 USD 4437 kWp Fanapanges & Fonoton USD 34,500 USD 4,500 USD 39,000 USD 4,875 USD 4066 kWp Uman / Tol / Oneop USD 28,000 USD 4,500 USD 32,500 USD 4,063 USD 3394 kWp Tol USD 21,000 USD 4,500 USD 25,500 USD 3,188 USD 266
Note: The same assumptions of the cost of the systems are used as for the calculations for the REP‐5
systems. The prices shown include 2 % inflation and are based on the cost trend seen in the North
Pacific in 2011‐2012. The cost of the BOS and inverter could be slightly high if prices reduce. As the
North‐REP had tendered out the supply of these parts, it would be good to adjust the calculation slightly
based on actual costs.
4.1.4YAPThe majority of the Yap outer islands have already installed some form of electrification including:
Solar PV systems on public facilities (schools and dispensaries);
Household solar systems (solar home systems in Satawal);
Solar PV mini grids (Asor and Fadrai) and
Diesel island grids (Ulithi Mog‐Mog; Ulithi Falalop; Woleai Falalop).
This electrification programme started in early 1990s and while some programmes, such as the
centralised systems, were done through the Yap State Public Service Corporation (YSPSC), most of the
stand‐alone solar systems have been managed directly either by the island communities (e.g. Satawal)
or by the State agencies e.g. the Department of Health and Education.
The National and Yap State Governments, together with YSPSC, have finalized a plan for rural
electrification through solar energy. This is outlined in the five‐year Yap State Energy Action Plan,
building on recommendations and priorities demonstrated in Yap State Energy Policy. It supports
ongoing efforts of Solar PV electrification within Yap State. The plans will build upon past solar
electrification activities supported by donors and development partners. Small PV systems on outer
island schools to support SSB radio’s for communication were provided by the University of Guam. The
French government provided a PV system and SSB radio’s for Falalop, Ulithi and Falalop, Wolea. The
REP‐5 programme installed PV mini grids on the islands of Asor and Fadrai in Ulithi atoll.
Currently Yap has two major outer island electrification programmes run through YSPSC:
1. The 10th EDF North‐REP that focuses on solar PV or PV‐diesel hybrid mini‐grids,
2. PV mini and micro grid systems and some stand‐alone systems for public facilities.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
56
For the North‐REP systems the payment structure will be based on the YSPSC outer island experience
and will have a fix flat rate with a kWh component.
Programme Atoll‐Island Type of system Approx. number of systems
EF II Ngulu Solar Home Systems – 500 WpPVstand‐alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
5 1
Woleai ‐ Falalus Solar Home Systems – 500 WpPVstand‐alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
20 2
Woleai ‐ Siliap Solar Home Systems – 500 WpPVstand‐alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
20 2
Woleai ‐ Tagailap
Solar Home Systems – 500 WpPVstand‐alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
20 2
Woleai ‐ Wattagai
Solar Home Systems – 500 WpPVstand‐alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
25 2
Euripik Solar Home Systems – 500 WpPVstand‐alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
21 2
Faraulap ‐ Falalap
Solar Home Systems – 500 WpPVstand‐alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
25 2
Faraulap ‐ Pigue Solar Home Systems – 500 WpPVstand‐alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
201
Elato Solar Home Systems – 500 WpPVstand‐alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
202
Ifalik Solar Home Systems – 500 WpPVstand‐alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
902
Lamotrek Solar Home Systems – 500 WpPVstand‐alone systems for public facilities – 2.5 kWp
702
Total Solar Home Systems 336Total Stand‐Alone Systems for Public Facilities 20
North‐REP Ulithi-Falalop /
High‐School PV Mini‐grid / 62.7 kWp 1
Ulithi-MogMog (island grid)
PV Mini‐grid / 34.4 kWp 1
Woleai ‐ Falalop PV‐Diesel Hybrid / 41 kWp (existing generator) 1Fais PV Micro‐grids / 20 kWp (2) ‐ 25 kWp (1) 3Satawal PV Micro‐grids / 20 kWp (3) ‐ 15 kWp (1) 4
4.1.4.1MonthlyFeeanalysisIn 2008 under the REP‐5 programme, YSPSC installed two PV powered mini‐grids in Asor and Fadrai
(both in Ulithi atoll). The customers here are connected through pre‐paid meters resulting in a 100%
collection. The tariff was set on USD 0.45 / kWh: this figure was based on the diesel grids used in the
neighbouring islands.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
57
The 45 cent rate would cover the component’s replacement cost if the amount of electricity used
reached 55% of the generated capacity. This represented a new challenge for the utility: the customers
on the island didn’t have any electrical appliances, which meant the load was only 20% of the generated
capacity. This meant that the collection of fees would not be enough to recover the replacement cost of
the batteries and other parts when due. Now the household’s load has increased to 60% of the
generated capacity and is expected to increase to 70% in the future as more people start relocating back
to the island and start installing freezers for storage etc. and as they notice that the power is more
reliable and cheaper than the fees currently charged on the neighbouring islands that have a diesel grid.
The following calculation shows the effect of load usage and the kWh rate:
The following assumptions are used: System: Stand‐Alone 48 V – 20 kWp Price per 2V Battery: USD 600 (=USD 2.40/Wp) Cost battery bank: USD 43,200 (USD 600 x 24 x 3) Inverter cost: USD 20,000 (USD 1000/kW) BOS: USD 3,000 Sales of kWh based on 60% usage.
(8 years) 40% load 50% load 60% load
kWh tariff $ 0.45 $ 0.65 $ 0.45 $ 0.52 $ 0.40 $ 0.45
income (year) $ 6,242 $ 9,016 $ 7,801 $ 9,016 $ 8,322 $ 9,362
Yearly cost (replacement) $ 8,275 $ 8,275 $ 8,275 $ 8,275 $ 8,275 $ 8,275
Yearly cost (O&M) $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600 $ 600
Profit / loss $ (2,633) $ 141 $ (1,074) $ 141 $ (533) $ 487
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐Final Report‐RMI
58
Under the EF II YSPSC will install SHS and Solar Stand Alone Systems for public facilities. The following fee considerations have been made:
Scenario 1 shows a flat rate per system inclusive replacing the batteries every 8 years and 10 years.
Prices
Panels 1.5 Wp
Batteries $ 1,200.80 SHS Inclusive replacement of Batteries (every 8 years)
$ 2,401.60 SCS
CC $ 200.00 SHS / 30A SHS Yearly Monthly SCS Yearly Monthly
$ 400.00 SCS / 60A 520Wp 2,460Wp
Inverter $ 400.00 SHS (400W) $ 275 $ 23 $ 775 $ 65
$ 3,000.00 SCS (3kW) O&M $ 16 $ 1.32 O&M $ 150 $ 13
BOS $ 1,000.00 Total $ 291 $ 24 Total $ 925 $ 77
Inclusive replacement of Batteries (every 10 years)
System Size 520 Wp SHS
2,460 Wp SCS SHS Yearly Monthly SCS Yearly Monthly
System Voltage 24 V SHS 520Wp 2,460Wp
48 V SCS $ 230 $ 19 $ 630 $ 53
Battery Size 190 Ah O&M $ 16 $ 1.32 O&M $ 150 $ 13
$ 1.58 Ah / 6V Total $ 246 $ 20 Total $ 780 $ 65
Inverter $ 1.00 W
Replacement 8 years
10 years
20 years
Scenario two uses a kWh rate –battery replacement every 8 years. Model A is when the systems is used for 80% of the designed capacity and
Model B 50% of the designed capacity used. It is clearly seen the effect and thus financial challenge with charging a kWh price.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
59
Solar Home Systems
total cost batteries inverters CC BOS
$ 2,801 $ 1,201 $ 400 $ 200 $ 1,000
8 Years $275 $ 150 $ 50 $ 25 $ 50
10 Years $ 230 $ 120 $ 40 $20 $ 50
Yearly O&M costs staff transportation
per Island: $ 600 $ 400 $ 200 per System: $ 16
System 0.52 kWp
2.34 kWh/d
Sales: 80% 1.872 kWh
683.28 kWh/y
50% 1.17 kWh
427.05 kWh/y
Est. SHS per Island: 38 Systems
Model A) incl. battery replacement (8 years)with sales of 80% of designed kWh
price /kWh $ 0.35 $ 0.40 $ 0.45 $ 0.50 $ 0.55 $ 0.60 $ 0.65 $ 0.70
income (year) $ 239 $ 273 $ 307 $ 342 $ 376 $ 410 $ 444 $ 478
Yearly cost (replacement) $ 275 $ 275 $ 275 $ 275 $ 275 $ 275 $ 275 $ 275
Yearly cost (O&M) $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16
$ (52) $ (18) $ 17 $ 51 $ 85 $ 119 $ 153 $ 187
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
60
Model B) incl. battery replacement (8 years)with sales of50%of designed kWh
price /kWh $ 0.40 $ 0.45 $ 0.50 $0.55 $0.60 $ 0.65 $ 0.70 $ 0.75 $ 0.80
income (year) $ 171 $ 192 $ 214 $ 235 $256 $ 278 $ 299 $ 320 $ 342
Yearly cost (replacement) $ 275 $ 275 $ 275 $275 $275 $ 275 $275 $275 $275
Yearly cost (O&M) $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16 $ 16
$ (120) $ (99) $ (77) $ (56) $ (35) $ (13) $ 8 $29 $ 51
Solar Community Systems
total cost batteries Inverters CC BOS
$ 6,802 $ 2,402 $ 3,000 $ 400 $ 1,000
8 Years $ 775 $ 300 $ 375 $ 50 $ 50
10 Years $ 680 $ 240 $ 300 $ 40 $ 50
Yearly O&M costs staff Transportation
per Island: $ 600 $ 400 $ 200 per System: $ 150
System 2.46 kWp
10.33 kWh/d
Sales: 80% 8.27 kWh 30% 3.10 kWh
3,017 kWh/y 1,131 kWh/y
50% 5.17 kWh
1,886 kWh/y
Est. SCS per Island: 4 Systems
Model A incl. battery replacement (8 years) with sales of 80% of designed kWh
price /kWh $0.30 $0.35 $0.40 $0.45 $0.50 $0.80
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
61
income (year) $905.08 $1,055.93 $1,206.78 $1,357.62 $1,508.47 $2,413.56
Yearly cost (replacement) $775.20 $775.20 $775.20 $775.20 $775.20 $775.20
Yearly cost (O&M) $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00
‐$20.12 ‐$84.00 ‐$50.00 ‐$16.00 $583.27 $1,488.36
Model B incl. battery replacement (8 years) with sales of 30% of designed kWh for the first 2 years, 50% for the next 3 years and 80% onwards
price /kWh $0.30 $0.35 $0.40 $0.45 $0.50 $0.70 $0.75 $0.80
income (year) $598.00 $697.67 $861.98 $969.73 $1,077.48 $1,508.47 $1,616.22 $1,723.97
Yearly cost (replacement) $775.20 $775.20 $775.20 $775.20 $775.20 $775.20 $775.20 $775.20
Yearly cost (O&M) $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00
‐$327.20 ‐$227.53 ‐$63.22 $44.53 $152.28 $583.27 $691.02 $798.77
Model C incl. battery replacement (8 years) with sales of $0.50 of designed kWh
price /kWh $0.35 $0.45 $0.50 $0.55 $0.60 $0.65 $0.80
income (year) $659.96 $848.52 $942.80 $1,037.07 $1,131.35 $1,225.63 $1,508.47
Yearly cost (replacement) $775.20 $775.20 $775.20 $775.20 $775.20 $775.20 $775.20
Yearly cost (O&M) $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00 $150.00
‐$265.24 ‐$76.68 $17.60 $111.87 $206.15 $300.43 $583.27
For the mini grids and other centralized systems selling the power to the end users by charging a kWh rate is a feasible option, however key is to
have the end‐users connected through pre‐paid meters. It would be advisable to:
1) Have a kWh rate that will be adjusted when the load increases, so start with a higher fee for the first years and lower the rate when the
load increase. That way the utility will avoid having a shortage in the budget when the battery bank needs to be replaced.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
62
2) Charge a mix rate that is built up like model B for the SCS. This model calculated with sales of 30% of designed kWh for the first 2 years, 50% for the next 3 years and 80% onwards. The problem with this approach is that the high rate can initially discourages the addition of appliances and the increased load that is desired. Another approach could be to assume some medium level of loading, say 50% and adjust the rate to that then there is a “loss” in the early years when it is below 50% but the lower rate encourages growth and there is a “profit” to cover the previous “loss” when above 50%. Then when the batteries are replaced stick with a rate consistent with the actual loading.
For the SHS and SCS it is clear that a flat rate would be the most viable option. For the systems installed by the Department of Education a fee‐
for‐service could be charged as flat rate while the replacement of the batteries remains with the state government but O&M and the
replacement of the inverter and BOS with the utility.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐Final Report‐RMI
63
5 FindingsandConclusions
5.1 CollectingFeesEffective collection of fees was the biggest challenge for all the installed PV systems.
In FSM we have seen different models tried and so far most of them failed. The problem was that the
following had not been put in place:
an adequate collection system
an adequate disconnection programme
In many cases, there was even distrust between the provider (utility) and the end‐user, arising from the
end‐user’s complaints that no service has been given to maintain the system and that parts have not
been replaced, even though fees have been collected.
For the larger systems on public facilities, it is clear that the departments need assistance to include the
correct amount in their yearly budget, while the utilities need to invoice in a timely manner for the
collection of fees.
The pre‐paid meters installed in mini‐grids have resulted in a 100% collection of fees, however the tariff
needs to be calculated in such a way that it still covers the replacement parts even if the load is only
50% of the installed capacity.
Who collects the fees and using which system? This will differ from state‐to‐state and there is no one
solution. Where technicians are available on the island, it would be logical to have them collecting the
fees. In other cases, fees will be paid on the main islands or through bank transfers. The key is that the
utility must have a good billing software that checks the payments. With the poor communications
between outer islands and the utility, even keeping the billing records up to date can be a problem.
5.2 Policyfornon‐paymentoffees.The initial cost of the systems has all been covered by grants (e.g. REP‐5, ongoing North‐REP etc.).
Therefore the only cost burden to the programme, until equipment needs replacing, is the technician to
attend if the system owner does not pay the fee. It is important for any fee collection method to be
successful that there is a strict policy on what happens when the fees are not paid.
For Solar Home Systems, as well as for the stand‐alone systems for the public facilities, a disconnect
policy should be included in the programme. The disconnection should be through a means that keeps
the battery connected to the panel though not to the loads. Otherwise the battery will be damaged if
the disconnection lasts more than a few weeks. This policy should be strictly implemented as otherwise
it will not be successful.
With the new payment models proposed, a new policy should be introduced which might vary from
state to state.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
64
The policy should have two possible parts:
Either
the disconnection and removal of the system after a specified period of time;
Or
No maintenance and/or service are provided for the system if there are outstanding payments.
In particular no battery or other equipment replacement if there are outstanding fees. We need
to stress on the point that the battery will be maintained but no load connected to it. Otherwise
that almost assures that the battery will in fact be damaged so then the fees that are finally
collected will not be enough to cover the early battery replacement. Disconnect it, remove it
but please don’t ignore it.
5.3 FeesMustReflectActualCostsFees need to be a cost recovery to ensure that parts can be replaced after they break down. This means
that calculations need to be made correctly and conservatively bearing in mind that, while the batteries
or other parts have a 10‐year life, they can break down earlier. For systems installed on public facilities,
for example on the schools or dispensaries, it might be recommended to charge a monthly flat rate
based on the replacement cost of the BOS, inverter and O&M of the system while the state departments
include either a yearly budget for replacing the batteries and move this money in a special purpose
account or they put the cost of the complete battery bank in the budget at the end of the life‐term – for
example each 8th year.If there is a surplus it can be passed over to the next battery replacement period
so collect on the basis of a conservative estimate and if indeed there is a surplus, start the next round
with that money and a lower fee.
5.4 AreFullTimeTechniciansrequired?The policy of having permanent, paid technicians on the islands is an excellent policy and addresses the
issue that has occurred in many failed SHS programmes in which the systems have not been maintained
and have subsequently failed. When mini‐grids are installed, it is definitely needed to have staff on the
island available for monitoring the systems.
For the stand alone PV systems on schools and dispensaries, it might be too expensive for the utility to
maintain permanent staff on each island, especially as the O&M doesn’t ask for daily activities. For these
systems it would be enough to train a local operator (school teacher / nurse) who will take care of the
system day‐to‐day. The local operator would then be a part time technician. They will get the training
but get paid only on the basis of the number of sites they maintain. This approach is started under the
REP‐5 and so far it has positive results.
It is important that all the PV systems are well maintained. The importance of monthly or at least
quarterly visits cannot be stressed enough. The core requirement for good battery life is catching
problems early, before they manifest themselves as total power failures. Preventative maintenance is
the key to long battery life and that is equally important as the fee collection. The technicians should be
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
65
well trained and as part of that training, the technicians should learn that if the battery voltage indicates
a greater depth of discharge than is appropriate for the conditions, there is probably a problem either
with the user or with the equipment.
Most of the systems in FSM use open cell batteries reinforcing the need to be checked for electrolyte
level at least monthly, so that means the technician has to go to the site. This could be done by a local
(part‐time) technician if there are only a few systems on the island.
5.5 SchoolSystemsTariffs for the school and dispensary systems are currently based on a flat rate. This is definitely the
safest way as it covers the full replacement costs of the systems. During our discussion with the four
state governments and utilities, it became clear that the DOE and DOH have no problem with a monthly
payment at a flat rate, however what this monthly rate is could cause an issue.
Experience has shown that it is easier if the Department allocates the fees for O&M and replacement of
the electrical parts e.g. inverter and controller in their annual budget for the running costs and, every 8th
year, include the cost of the replacement batteries in their budget. That way the batteries are treated as
capital expenditure. While theoretically this might be an option, it is noted in other countries around the
Pacific that it has not happened where Health or Education were given the responsibility to replace
batteries. Only in Kiribati, where the KSEC charged the full replacement cost within their O&M contract
and provided the batteries which meant the systems actually kept going after a battery failure.
Discussion with the departments highlighted the benefits of the systems to the school and the local
community. These included the potential for the schools to become the local internet centre for the
island, providing a service to the community. The school could install an internet connection and
computers that can be used by the students during the day and then by the island residents during the
night and on weekends. The schools could charge for these services which would cover the cost of the
internet service but also be used to contribute to the equipment replacement fund.
Once the internet is established at the schools, they could be eligible for the ‘computers for schools’
programmes initiated by the USDOE and other organisations.
The North‐REP has anticipated this development and for the systems in Chuuk they included a battery
charging system for the solar lanterns at the schools.
Being connected to the internet also allowed the department and the schools to:
Have professional development days and staff meetings online;
Allow the exam papers to be transmitted via e‐mail instead of relying on the boats; and
Have access to more learning material that is available online.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
66
5.6 ProductQualityThe issue of the failed systems in the past and purchase of incorrect replacement part on some
occasions emphasises the need to ensure any product purchased is a quality product and suitable for
use in the outer islands. Although all tenders have a ‘technical’ and a ‘price’ section, when such tenders
are evaluated, it is important to note that usually quality products will not be selected because it is the
cheapest price that is selected. Equipment such as solar modules and batteries has published standards
that can be used as a basis to select the most suitable products. The selection of any product must be
undertaken only when the vendor can provide references that the equipment has been used for 2‐3
years successfully in other countries and preferably in similar climatic conditions.
Important also is the overall system performance and the installer of the systems needs to be able to
give a certain warrantee on this. If cables are not the correct UV protected ones or too small, or if the
breakers are missing or incorrect quality, then systems fail more often than when systems use the right
components, BOS and design.
Any batteries proposed for selection should be checked against specific information on the actual cycle
life of the batteries being offered. In the tendering process, experience has shown that the batteries
offered can be cheaper than other batteries , however after a full analysis of the comparative cycle life is
done, the cheaper batteries have a much lower cycle life and therefore the replacement time for these
batteries would be much shorter than originally estimated. The tender for North‐REP systems has been
completed and the review team has not been able to obtain information on the equipment being
offered to allow an analysis of the potential product life. It need to be stressed that replacing batteries
on remote islands is an expensive proposition with the cost of getting them to the islands and installing
them and then bringing back the old batteries for recycling can be a significant percentage of the cost of
the batteries themselves. It is clear that the main focus of any technical effort in design and
maintenance should be to extend the battery life as long as possible if the lowest life cycle cost is to be
achieved.
5.7 ListofEquipmentTo manage the ongoing maintenance of the systems, it is critical that there is a data base listing all the
equipment located at each of the installations. For the sake of spare parts, it would be advantageous if
all the systems were identical. However since the systems have been installed under various funding
programmes via tenders, this is not possible; although it would be good to keep each island’s system
equipment as similar as possible so the local technician can service the maximum number of systems
with a minimum range of spares. Design guidelines are required and should be followed to avoid
systems being designed incorrectly. For example ”experts” would not pack a sealed battery and a
controller, which is designed to have convective ventilation for cooling, tightly in a hot box mounted in
the sun!
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
67
5.8 ReplacementofBatteriesIt is important to carefully evaluate the lifetime of the batteries to be installed, and, based on that, the
fee structure can be prepared. A study in the Marshall Islands of the batteries used in the Ailinglaplap
project found that they had a cycle life of 1000 cycles down to a depth of discharge of 80%. The data
sheets did not have information on the cycle life for only 20‐25% depth of discharge per day, but a
comparison with other batteries would indicate that the number of cycles for this would be between
2500 (6.8 years) and 3000 (8.2 years)cycles. Note that the number of cycles does decrease in hotter
climates such as FSM and when batteries are installed in the badly ventilated boxes in the hot sun.
Replacing batteries as they fail is a costly procedure because it relies on the continuous purchase of
small quantities of batteries as required. The cost of transport to the various States and then onto the
outer islands would add to the cost. Added to this is the cost of recycling of the failed batteries which
can be substantial. It would be more cost effective to purchase a quantity of batteries as spare parts that
are ready for use as batteries fail. This would mean keeping batteries as a stock item and this would
require a program of ‘refresher’ charging because of self‐ discharge.
Better battery management for these types of programmes is to plan the replacement of all the
batteries on an island after a specified period of time. Although it would be ideal to wait the full ten
years as used in the initial cost analysis, perhaps the replacement at 8 years would be more realistic.
Replacing all the batteries on an island at the same time has the following benefits:
Allows future planning for when batteries will be replaced and a tender can be organised to
obtain the best price at that time.
Helps with budget planning, forward knowledge of these expected costs and when they will be
due. Logistics can be arranged so that shipping and handling costs are minimal on a per battery
basis.
Allows for battery recycling. The new batteries can be taken to island at one time and all the old
batteries can then be returned to the state centres for recycling at the one time.
5.9 TransportandCommunicationsThe difficulty with transport between the Islands and the use of SSB radios for communications was
identified as a major issue for the outer electrification programme; however there is no easy solution
because both of these issues are currently outside of the control of the utilities as the FSM telecom has
the mandate to provide these services. Some of the FSM utilities (YSPSC) are considering installing
satellite internet in the islands both to support the outer island electrification programmes and to
increase their outer island activities which can help lower the overall support costs per unit of service
delivered.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
68
During the REP‐5, some satellite disks (VSAT) were installed on the islands Pingelap, Mwoakilloa,
Sapwuakik (Pohnpei), Moch and Onoun (Chuuk). Most of these VSATs are still working as the villagers
and the DOE see the importance of having internet connection for communication. Internet connectivity
using VSAT could be a solution for all future outer island electrification programmes as remote
monitoring of the systems would be possible as well as fee collection could be better monitored. The
monthly fees for the connection (USD$400/month) can be paid by the various users, the schools, the
health centre and the villagers who want to make use of the system.
The challenge with transportation: the current programme of sending spare parts to the technicians will
continue to rely on the existing boats and air transport. While air transportation is expensive the
problem with the sea transportation is the lack of a fixed regular schedule. The islands are on average
served only 3‐4 times a year.
5.10 TrainingThere are currently over 20 Island technicians in the FSM, with one more about to be appointed, and
over the next 2 years an additional number of 10 are expected to be appointed in Yap only.
5.10.1SHSSystemTrainingThe island technicians have all had basic training at the time of installation, and some refresher and
ongoing training is required. In May 2012, the Sustainable Energy Industries Association of Pacific Islands
(SEIAPI) launched a technician’s certification programme. It is proposed that there will a certification
category for installation and maintenance of SHS.
Through this certification programme, various task analyses (or competency standards) are being
developed that identifies all the knowledge and skills which should be incorporated into a training
course. Once the task analysis for SHS installation and maintenance technicians is completed, then
training courses should be organised for these island technicians. One of the technicians located in the
main islands could then be trained as the trainer or this could be undertaken in partnership with the
College of Micronesia. In technical colleges the best trainers are those who have field experience in the
specific field of training, and this is the reason for the suggestion that each state will have one of the
technicians that becomes the trainer. However for the development of long term training capacity, the
training should be co‐ordinated with a training institute such as College of Micronesia.
This training is expected to be a 1 ‐2 week course and would be conducted either in each state or in
Kosrae where stand alone systems are easily accessible without having to travel to the outer islands.
However the training for the outer island technician should be held in each state ideally on one of the
islands that has systems installed. Because of the difficulty of transportation, the actual logistics would
need to be determined. One would anticipate that a number of courses would need to be conducted to
overcome the transportation issues. Once the courses have been completed these technicians could
then apply for their certification with SEIAPI. Note that the SHS used for training does not have to be
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
69
one on an actual residence. For example in Palau the unit used for off‐grid training runs the security
lights for the NDBP but is still of the type being installed in more remote areas.
Short refresher training courses should be developed. These should then be held at least once every
year. It should be the responsibility of the Solar Engineer to co‐ordinate the initial training courses and
the on‐going refresher training. A yearly schedule should be developed and implemented. This could be
co‐ordinated with the College of Micronesia.
5.10.2 LargerSystemsUnder a separate contract, GSES Micronesia developed for North‐REP a maintenance and operation
training course for the school and clinic systems installed in FSM under REP‐5. The course was
conducted in March 2012 and the long term intention is that the College of Micronesia will use the
material to conduct future courses.
SEIAPI will be developing a task analysis for the installation and maintenance of these types of systems.
The course proposed above should also meet this task analysis.
A course should then be organised to be conducted for those technicians currently looking after the
existing systems installed under REP5. Once the new school systems are installed under North‐REP, the
same course should then be conducted for those technicians who will be maintaining those schools.
Ideally the ongoing training courses should be conducted by the FSM technician nominated to be the
trainer; however initially it might be better if the first course was conducted by an experienced trainer
and the FSM technicians attend that course themselves. The initial course could be viewed as a train the
trainer course for that technician.
Note: USAID currently has a programme working with Arizona State University to support the
development of training centres in the Pacific islands. At this point of time it is anticipated that they will
conduct a ‘train the trainers’ course in the next 6‐9 months. These courses would be based on the task
analysis being prepared for the SEIAPI certification programme. The course will possibly be held at USP
in Suva but the programme will cover the expenses. The trainer selected for the above identified
training requirements should possibly attend this proposed ‘train the trainer’ course.
5.11 RoutineMaintenanceusingFSM’sfieldtripvesselPohnpei State and Chuuk State have a limited amount of solar systems installed in the outer islands. The SHS installed are currently owned directly by the end‐users and no technician is on island to serve them. The islands that have received a PV system from the REP‐5 programme have, however, part‐time local operators.
Pohnpei State has no vessel that serves the outer islands and relies on the “Caroline Voyager”, the National Government Fieldtrip Ship. Chuuk has some private vessels that serve the outer islands.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
70
As systems, such as solar home systems, were installed, some communities saw that they were “supplied by the boat”, that is delivered and installed by to the boat taking the equipment to those islands and other islands, and they would ask the captain of the boat when would they get similar lights —hence improved lighting was seen as a benefit by the island people. The ‘Caroline Voyager’ is especially seen as the lifeline of the island communities to the outside world.
When CDA (the National Coconut Development Authority) had money to purchase copra, the fieldtrip boat would have a representative from the agency travel with the boat to purchase copra and therefore provide cash to some in the communities. Some people would provide pigs for payments for products that were on board the boat or sell the pigs to those on the boat for them to on sell back in Pohnpei, Yap or Chuuk.
Collection of the fees for the SHS, even if the people had the money was an issue because there were no banks or facilities for people to make payments and/or for someone to act as the agent and pick up money. What do they do with the money collected? They would have to wait till the boat comes and send it to the utility on the main island? One option could be whether the mayors/chiefs collect the money and arrange sending it when the boat comes in?
The boat was often bringing items supplied by relatives to the outer island people inclusive replacement batteries for the SHS privately owned.
Effective maintenance of systems was an issue and with typically very few systems on most islands, that is either a few larger systems on the schools and/or dispensaries or in the case of Pingelap, Mwoakillao and Sapwuafic in Pohnpei and Satawan in Yap with Solar Home Systems from programmes in the 1990’s and early 2000, it is not feasible to have a full time technician on the island to undertake maintenance.
So the maintenance technician will need to travel to the islands by the boat. The technician would need to spend a few weeks on the boat and would have to try to do maintenance on the systems while the boat was at the island.
The Department of Transportation, Communication & Infrastructure came up with the suggestion to look at the fieldtrip vessel as one way to do the routine maintenance (quarterly) of the solar systems in Chuuk and Pohnpei (Yap has technicians who can do the maintenance) and the fact that on the boat they have a chief engineer, electrician and a number of technical staff, who have ample time when visiting an island, indicate that this might be an option to look into more seriously. They could do the maintenance while the boat was at the island! This appears practical and a cheaper way to provide the service. However it did raise some issues that would need to be addressed:
a. The issue of money collection and then payment to the staff to do the work
b. The issues of national government boat doing state services
c. Is the time that the boat is on island long enough to do the needed work
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
71
The ship crew remain working on the boat for many years and they want to help the outer islands and
the boat was seen as the “lifeline” of service for the outer islands. (Note: most of the ship crew are
originally from the outer islands).
O&M of the systems have different levels and can be done by different people. The local operator on
islands should at least do some basic maintenance such as clean modules and keep trees from shading
modules—possibly coordinated with Mayors/chief or teachers with school systems or health assistance
with the dispensary systems. The trained boat technicians could do basic servicing—clean battery
terminals, confirm operation of controllers and inverters (if part of system). And the third level of
maintenance can be done by the main technicians from the utilities. If there are problems with the
system the boat technician could contact more highly skilled technical people within utility or Govt
department who could provide higher level service/advice when required.
This idea was discussed with CPUC, PUC and with the State Governments and using the crew of the
National Government fieldtrip ship “Caroline Voyager” to assist with the routine maintenance of the
solar systems installed at the remote outer islands was well received. The Caroline Voyager has a
permanent crew of electricians (2) and a chief engineer on board who could be trained to do service the
solar systems. They also can have on board distilled water needed for topping up the batteries.
The Caroline Voyager is managed by the department of TC&I (National Government) and makes regular
visits (3‐4 times a year) to all the islands.
It is key, however, that the Voyager crew that would service the systems and coordinate this in advance
with CPUC, PUC and DOE. The utility could in those cases decide (based on feedback from the local
operators) whether they should dispatch a more senior technician in case of more serious maintenance
issues.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
72
6. Recommendations
6.1 Non‐paymentPolicyA strict ‘non‐payment’ policy must be implemented especially for SHS. Allowing 2 months without
payment of the fee before the system is disconnected is a good policy, however if the payment structure
is to be flexible e.g. payment by commodities, then the non‐payment policy needs to be based on a
longer period.
It is recommended that a payment policy is introduced which is based on some form of payment every 6
months or 12 months This would mean that if no effort to make any payment is made within that 6 or
12 month period, then the system must be removed.
If for political reasons this is never enforced, then the minimum outcome should be that no person with
outstanding fees should ever have any major equipment (e.g. batteries, controllers) replaced.
6.2 SchoolSystemsIt is recommended that the utilities approaches the Ministry of Education with a suggested tariff that
reflects the replacement of batteries and inverters based on the current energy usage.
6.3 DataBaseofSystemsIt is recommended that a data base is established which should include:
Name the system owner
GPS co‐ordinates of the system
List all the equipment, brand, model and capacity/rating
Date of installation and date of any equipment change, along with update in equipment
Includes a wiring diagram showing the identified components and their location in the circuit
6.4 TrainingThat R & D and the four utilities coordinate the following:
Liaise with College of Micronesia COM or another party to conduct an installation and
maintenance course for the existing and future island technicians. If the college does not have
an internal mechanism for developing solar courses then the task analysis being developed by
regional Renewable Energy & Energy Efficiency Training Competency Standards Advisory
Committee, which comprises many CROP agencies and chaired by USP, should be adopted.
Develop a programme of short courses which help with the technician’s professional
development—these could just be short refresher courses.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
73
Contact SPC to determine how the course based on the operations and maintenance of the
school systems could be conducted in the four state centres and possibly provided to College of
Micronesia so that they can conduct future courses.
It is recommended that one of the technicians of each utility becomes a trainer.
6.5 RoutineMaintenanceusingFSM’sfieldtripvesselIt is recommended that the option to use the “Caroline Voyager” to provide routine maintenance
(quarterly) of the solar systems in Chuuk and Pohnpei (Yap has technicians who can do the
maintenance) should be considered. On the boat they have a chief engineer, electrician and a number of
technical staff, who have ample time when visiting an island and could be used. If a separate
maintenance person was sent they would have to travel by this boat.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
74
AnnexI:InterviewwithMr.TonyActouka.
Mr. Actouka worked for over 34 years at Pohnpei State Government and had the following positions:
1. Assistant Energy Planner 1977 – 1978 2. State Inspector 1979 – 1980 3. State Energy Planner 1980 – 1986 4. Chief, Energy Division 1986 – 2011
Mr. Actouka is retired and currently studying a Master degree course on Environmental Science at the University of Guam
Prepared: June 13, 2012
A. For the Energy Division and Utility Management:
1. Total number of systems? 2. 251 stand‐ alone PV systems excluding the stand‐alone household solar lighting systems
on Pingelap which are maintained by PUC. I. Broken down into individual household
a. Mwoakilloa – 47 b. Mwudok – 2 c. Parem – 50 d. Lenger 17 e. Pohnpei ‐ 2 f. Sapwuahfik – 105 g. Pakin – ? h. Pingelap?
II. Community buildings
a. Mwoakilloa – 1 b. Mwudok ‐ 1
III. Health clinics
5 (new systems) and 5 (old and already removed systems)
IV. Schools
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
75
6 solar stand‐alone systems
V. Pakin 1 solar water pumping
VI. Pingelap 1 solar freezer system at the Co‐op
3. What Islands?
a).Mwoakilloa b). Mwudok c). Parem d). Lenger e). Pohnpei f). Sapwuahfik g). Pakin h).Pingelap
4. Number on each?
a) Mwoakilloa – 47 b). Mwudok – 2 c). Parem – 50 d). Lenger 17 e). Pohnpei ‐ 2 f). Sapwuahfik – 105 g). Pakin ‐? h). Pingelap ‐ ?
5. Are all systems same size? They are all different sizes and capacities due to:
Sizes and suppliers were determined by the donor agency. For example, the French grant purchased equipment from Total Energie, Italian grant was of different capacity and different supplier, Sapwuahfik different supplier and equipment. Standardization could not be achieved because of the donor’s obligation, public relations, and patriotism to their countries.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
76
6. What if a person wants a larger system? E.g. to operate TV, etc.
Any person who wants larger systems, operating TV & VCR, washing machine, etc will have to purchase it themselves but technical assistance will be provided to them.
7. What is the monthly repayment for individual household systems?
For Mwoakilloa, Pakin, Mwudok, and Sapwuahfik individual household solar lighting systems, the monthly tariffs were $5.00 per system. This tariff was based on the amount of expenditure for kerosene for lighting per month.
Solar lighting displaced the use of kersosene lighting. As for the Mwudok solar freezer/TV/VCR system, monthly tariff was $15.00 per month. No survey for their ability and will to pay.
Pingelap solar freezer system, two chest type freezers, the tariff was based on the weight of the items that need to be stored in the freezers.
8. What happens with the community buildings, schools, etc.? Budget for the solar systems from the Departments of Health and Education to defray the cost of the energy used from the solar as realized. DOE and DOH agreed on paying a flat rate of USD 350 / month / system.
9. What should it be to be sustainable (that is individual repayment fee)?
A Solar Committee was established on each of the islands as promulgated by Ordinance, however some members of the committees were politicians and politicians tend to do something that will please constituents. These members were not so effective. Perhaps the Energy Committee should consist of women who utilizes the systems and always around the systems.
A survey should be conducted on the residents’ ability and will to pay. Then a cost estimate on such things as replacing batteries every three years, technician salaries, etc. should be made to compare the two results. Higher for the estimate, revisit the residents and inform them of the difference. Maybe a more strict disconnection policy, but how and where to disconnect,( they may reconnect by‐passing other parts of the system) a stricter tampering policy, maybe electric meters but loads are small. More exploration on this matter should be done.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
77
10. What is % of households making payments? In the beginning, it was about 95% but as time went on, it decline to where almost no one is paying.
11. Are the DOE and DOH making payments? I am not aware of any payments made. Budgets were considered and approved but never materialized.
12. What is the procedure when people do not make the payments? When people did not pay for 60 days, the trained technicians were supposed to disconnect their systems. Best approach of disconnection was from the panels, but some were roof mounted and technicians were not allowed to get on the roofs. Regulators were removed but systems were provided with their own batteries and were directly connected.
13. How many local technicians on each island? Two trained technicians on each islands of Mwoakilloa, Sapwuahfik, Parem/Lenger and Pakin.
14. How do you contact them? We contact them thru single band municipal radios.
15. How are they trained? They were trained by the suppliers during installation.
16. Do they need reskilling or refresher training? Yes they would need reskilling and refresher trainings.
17. What is their monthly wage? Every $5.00 collected, they get $2.00 for incentive and maintenance work compensation.
18. Any major issues with the systems? Some trainees showed the system end‐users how to reset the regulator and use sticks to prop‐up the switch so it will not cut‐off when the battery is discharging lower than the limit. They have 12 hours of light.
19. What is the typical lifetime of the batteries? 5‐10 years
20. What happens with the dead batteries? They are left on the islands because there is not enough budget to bring them back to Pohnpei to send out for recycling. Lead is used for fishing sinkers.
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
78
That is, what is battery disposal mechanism? None
21. How many households still without systems? Kapingmarangi, Nukuoro, Mwahnd Peidi and Peidak, Oroluk and remote villages and communities where the power grid has not reached and will not reach in a long time due to the terrain and remoteness. On what islands? Kapingmarangi, Nukuoro, Mwahnd Peidi and Peidak, Oroluk
22. What is the long term plan for electrifying them? Electrification is the responsibility of PUC B. For technicians:
23. What is their opinion of the solar systems? It’s good, but not sufficient to meet people’s needs
24. Do they think larger systems are required? Yes
25. What are their major issues? Tampering of the systems C. For Schools (Department of Education):
26. How many schools with systems? Five island schools How many still needing them? Four schools: 1. Parem, 2. Salapwuk,3. Mwand and 4. Pakin
27. What is the typical system size? Pretty much, 6 kWp
28. What are the typical loads? Loads are lighting, computers, projectors, TV/VCR, copiers, freezers and entertainment equipment. Lighting?
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
79
Yes Are there computers, etc. at any of the schools? Yes
29. What is their opinion of the solar systems? It is very well appreciated for they will utilized to enhance their teaching and learning methodologies.
30. What are their major issues? The issue is the slowness in getting the teaching equipment on the islands now that they have sufficient and reliable power source.
31. What would they like to see as an improvement? They are satisfied with the systems
D. For Health Clinics:
1. How many health centers with systems? Five centers: Pingelap, Mwoakilloa, Sapwuahfik, Nukuoro, and Kapingamarangi how many still needing them? None
2. What is the typical system size? 3 kWp
3. What are the typical loads? Loads are lighting, computers, projectors, TV/VCR, and other medical equipment. Lighting? Yes Medical equipment? Fridges
4. What is their opinion of the solar systems? It is very well appreciated for they will utilized to enhance and improve medical services.
5. What are their major issues? Getting the equipment needed on the islands
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
80
6. What would they like to see as an improvement? None
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
81
ANNEXII:ProblemsExperiencedandProposedImprovements
‐discussion notes with Mr. Tony Actouka
1. Decentralized/Stand-Alone Home Solar Systems (SHS) on Remote Islands:
Limited/lack of Public land availability for centralized PV systems
Food crops removal for land based PV Power generating plant would impact livelihood of island residents
Pohnpei Utilities Corporation (PUC) proposed floating PV Power Generating Plant for remote islands
2. Installed Capacities of Household PV systems were insufficient to meet household needs
Most systems installed were three 13 watt fluorescent lights and rest were two 15 watt fluorescent lights
Some systems were two 55 watt, one 75 watt, or one 100 watt panel
Increase capacities for need for entertainment (TV & VCR, radios, etc.), refrigeration, washing machine for water conservation, longer hours of lighting use, etc.
Proposed for the Main Island of Pohnpei is AC SHS for remote households or (maybe centralized) AC/grid-connected in villages to sell excess power to the utility
3. Conversion from DC to AC
DC fluorescent ballast & fixtures sizes and types not available in local hardware stores
DC refrigeration/freezing equipment are expensive and also not available in local hardware stores
Limited use of DC PV power systems than AC
High Energy Efficient Rating (EER) appliances and lights are available in AC and in local hardware stores
AC energy efficient equipment are readily available locally and is cheaper than DC equipment
All systems except 2008 &2009 were DC and have insufficient and inadequate capacities
RFP Ref: 11/14 Review of the Outer Islands Electrification Programmes in RMI and FSM‐ Final Report‐FSM
82
Systems on Pingelap, Mwoakilloa, Parem and Lenger, Pakin, and Sapwuahfik can be refurbished with increased capacities and converted to AC
4. Battery: Single 12 volt batteries can easily be tampered with by taking it out for night
fishing, etc. o Batteries discharged beyond its dischargeable limit and therefore limits its
life and recharging takes longer time o Not maintenance free batteries at times were filled with contaminated
ordinary tap or rain water o Sealed/maintenance free batteries do not last long because water level
could not be monitored and maintained o Two 6 volts or six (6) 2 volt cell batteries are heavier and would be harder
to move them around
5. PUC/establish a private institution or agency to operate and maintain the systems for sustainability
Customers were not willing to pay and the residents ability to pay was not assessed
Solar Committees established failed to function as anticipated to collect tariffs and set policies because board members included politicians
Solar Committee members consisting of woman is prone to be more sustainable because they utilize the solar lighting nightly and appreciate the benefit, etc.
Trained technicians were not committed to project maintenance salaries should be based on minimum wage by hourly
6. Project sustainability
More aggressive Public Awareness and Education Program on Energy Efficiency
and Conservation Projects should be community based Project must be gender oriented Stakeholders must have greater input and participation from conception, planning,
and implementation Provide systems with higher capacities to meet the household needs Conduct a survey to assess the residents’ ability and willing to pay for the use of
the systems
Recommended